Let's do this.
Ah, it's been a while.. Well, since 08, at least
Let's light this bitch up. I already have the feeling that I'm alone.
I think I may be using the mute button.
Intrepid Reader: PenFoe:
See? I told you Cutler sucks.
Well, so far, I don't hate this.
Three & out? Is that legal?
Not a good decision to throw there. Bloody hell. These turds still don't block a damn soul. Stay with the two tight ends as long as possible.
Where can the Bears get one of them Calvin Johnsons?
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Where can the Bears get one of them Calvin Johnsons?
Next year after they go 1-15.
Penalties, an inability to stop anyone on third down. That's more like it.
Quote from: fiveouts on September 12, 2010, 12:31:29 PM
Penalties, an inability to stop anyone on third down. That's more like it.
They're like a whole different team this year!
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Where can the Bears get one of them Calvin Johnsons?
Next year after they go 1-15.
You're saying there will be a Calvin Johnson available with one of the 4 3rd round picks Angelo gets for the No. 1 overall?
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Where can the Bears get one of them Calvin Johnsons?
Next year after they go 1-15.
You're saying there will be a Calvin Johnson available with one of the 4 3rd round picks Angelo gets for the No. 1 overall?
Surely there's a dude named Calvin Johnson somewhere who wants to play football.
Greg Olsen, ladies and gentlemen.
Greg Olsen can go to hell.
At least the defense did their job after that stupid fumble.
Greg Olsen is a piece of shit.
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:43:01 PM
Greg Olsen, ladies and gentlemen.
Greg Olsen is the most something something since Matt Murton. Slow, white, can't catch, no power. Cut him now. Make him take off his jersey and escort him out of the building.
This game is living up to its billing as a titanic struggle for the right to draft the next Calvin Johnson.
Is it too early to pick a new team to root for this season as a fallback? Houston is already currying favor with me by going up on Indianapolis, but loses points for being in Texas.
I know people love to rip him, but Brian Urlacher is fucking good.
I like all the penalties so far. That's a good thing if your team is mediocre, right?
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:53:53 PM
Is it too early to pick a new team to root for this season as a fallback? Houston is already currying favor with me by going up on Indianapolis, but loses points for being in Texas.
They have a rivalry with the Cowboys. Therefore, they are worth rooting for.
Only a brain dead Chuck would rip Urlacher. Another fucking dumb penalty. These teams are going to set a record today. I hope Al is happy.
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 12:53:53 PM
Is it too early to pick a new team to root for this season as a fallback? Houston is already currying favor with me by going up on Indianapolis, but loses points for being in Texas.
A certain Stanley Cup Champion will be starting up soon.
Quote from: Slaky on September 12, 2010, 12:56:56 PM
I like all the penalties so far. That's a good thing if your team is mediocre, right?
Not nearly as good as all these turnovers.
I hate this team.
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 01:02:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 12, 2010, 12:56:56 PM
I like all the penalties so far. That's a good thing if your team is mediocre, right?
Not nearly as good as all these turnovers.
I thought Forte never fumbles...
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 01:02:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 12, 2010, 12:56:56 PM
I like all the penalties so far. That's a good thing if your team is mediocre, right?
Not nearly as good as all these turnovers.
I thought Forte never fumbles...
He only sometimes never fumbles.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 01:04:16 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 01:02:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 12, 2010, 12:56:56 PM
I like all the penalties so far. That's a good thing if your team is mediocre, right?
Not nearly as good as all these turnovers.
I thought Forte never fumbles...
He only sometimes never fumbles.
Those are Cutler's fault. He's getting insulin all over the ball and making it hard to hang on to.
There's a whole second half to play. I'm not too worried, yet.
I'm so pissed off I can't see straight. Good call to watch this one by myself.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:08:07 PM
There's a whole second half to play. I'm not too worried, yet.
Oh they can win this game, but Christ on a bike, it's the fucking Lions.
That TD and blind fucking ref didn't help.
Detroit has scored two touchdowns by getting less than 50 yards per drive. The Bears have driven up and down the field on this shit team and have three fucking points to show for it. Anger does not begin to explain how I feel about this game.
HUZZAH!
Reviewing to see if he stepped out? Of course he did.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 01:20:22 PM
Reviewing to see if he stepped out? Of course he did.
If they bring this back, the fix is clearly in.
And this refs eyes should be gouged out with a spork because he clearly doesn't need or use them.
That Peppers fellow might be all right.
That was a nice end to the half.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:14:47 PM
That TD and blind fucking ref didn't help.
I think the ball broke the plane as he twisted back towards the goal line on his way down.
Brian and Thom disagree.
Pick your poison.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:22:04 PM
If they bring this back, the fix is clearly in.
And this refs eyes should be gouged out with a spork because he clearly doesn't need or use them.
They didn't call it back.
Does that mean the fix
isn't in?
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 01:29:13 PM
That Peppers fellow might be all right.
That sack was a thing of beauty.
Pause.
I love the Lions. If the Bears quit stepping on their dicks, they'll win this. And as I type, illegal block in the back. Fuck.
These guys fear good field position like AIDS.
I hope Cutler has really good insurance.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 12, 2010, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 01:29:13 PM
That Peppers fellow might be all right.
That sack was a thing of beauty.
Pause.
Validated. Are we still saying that?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2010, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:14:47 PM
That TD and blind fucking ref didn't help.
I think the ball broke the plane as he twisted back towards the goal line on his way down.
Brian and Thom disagree.
Pick your poison.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:22:04 PM
If they bring this back, the fix is clearly in.
And this refs eyes should be gouged out with a spork because he clearly doesn't need or use them.
They didn't call it back.
Does that mean the fix isn't in?
Is this game rigged? Like those old game shows? Is nothing sacred?
Quote from: Night Man on September 12, 2010, 02:07:55 PM
I hope Cutler has really good insurance.
State Farm offers discounts of up t 40%, I heard.
This game is awesome.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2010, 02:16:52 PM
This game is awesome.
We'll remember it on draft day. For good or ill.
Will Charles Tillman ever learn how to actually play cornerback? This guy has won some games for the Bears. No doubt about it. He can cause fumbles and get the occasional interception. However as I stated in the past, if you ask him to actually cover a receiver, you are basically fucked as a team. Football is a simple game to figure out. It's 11 on 11. A player should be able to pick someone on the other team and play defense.
Peanut picked Calvin.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2010, 02:21:38 PM
Will Charles Tillman ever learn how to actually play cornerback? This guy has won some games for the Bears. No doubt about it. He can cause fumbles and get the occasional interception. However as I stated in the past, if you ask him to actually cover a receiver, you are basically fucked as a team. Football is a simple game to figure out. It's 11 on 11. A player should be able to pick someone on the other team and play defense.
Peanut picked Calvin.
+1 for him. But I've said in the past. He can do ok against big, physical receivers like Calvin. Sure. But put him up against a faster, speedy guy like Wes Welker and you're spelling dooooooooom.
let's see those cuakers fuck this up.
Fucking Briggs. Couldn't craw 6 inches. Now look.
SNEAK THE FUCKING BALL YOU FUCKING CUAKERS
what a bunch of gutless fucking slapdicks
FUck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes. Cue Calivin for 99 yards.
Lovie should not be coaching this team tomorrow.
The D needs to take it away and score this time.
Quote from: thehawk on September 12, 2010, 02:38:39 PM
Lovie should not be coaching this team tomorrow.
But who would take over? Marinelli? Martz? Blech.
Fuck Lovie for poisoning the offensive line into not getting one yard of push on four tries.
To echo Apex, how the fuck do you not try the quick QB sneak even ONCE from that spot?
I think they're going to lose this game. I really do.
At least there's college football.
The Bear OL is comically bad.
Also, if you're Forte, how can you not try and get up in the air and over at least once?
Or how about just taking the damn lead with the easy 3 points?
Quote from: Tony on September 12, 2010, 02:50:03 PM
Or how about just taking the damn lead with the easy 3 points?
All up in this. That was epically stupid.
Gain one yard. You can call coach fail til you're blue in the face. But that shit was fucked up at the point of attack. It's an epidemic for four years now. Those guys are just not NFL caliber linemen.
Quote from: Tony on September 12, 2010, 02:50:03 PM
Or how about just taking the damn lead with the easy 3 points?
That was almost as stupid as Jim Schwartz electing to go for more points with barely a minute left in the first half, his young team and young QB up by 4, and the expectation of getting the ball back to start the second half.
Almost.
Hey, maybe the Illini will make a bowl game and save Ron Zook's job.
That'd be a good thing, right?
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 02:57:18 PM
Hey, maybe the Illini will make a bowl game and save Ron Zook's job.
That'd be a good thing, right?
They did look good last night. Against SIU.
Guess who decided to bench Forte today about 10 minutes before kickoff.
Yep. What a fucking McGovern I've been.
This is going to be the worst Ive felt about a team after an opening day win ever.
Quote from: thehawk on September 12, 2010, 03:01:41 PM
This is going to be the worst Ive felt about a team after an opening day win ever.
Don't jinx this thing.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 02:53:59 PM
It's an epidemic for four years now. Those guys are just not NFL caliber linemen.
Well, if that's the case, it makes the decision to not kick even more stupid.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 12, 2010, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on September 12, 2010, 03:01:41 PM
This is going to be the worst Ive felt about a team after an opening day win ever.
Don't jinx this thing.
Guilty
If they win on this call....wow. That's a fucking touchdown.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 02:53:59 PM
It's an epidemic for four years now. Those guys are just not NFL caliber linemen.
Well, if that's the case, it makes the decision to not kick even more stupid.
That.
Quote from: Tony on September 12, 2010, 03:10:44 PM
If they win on this call....wow. That's a fucking touchdown.
Worst win in Bears' history. HUZZAH!
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2010, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:22:04 PM
If they bring this back, the fix is clearly in.
And this refs eyes should be gouged out with a spork because he clearly doesn't need or use them.
They didn't call it back.
Does that mean the fix isn't in?
I think it is.
Thank Gord the fix was in.
This is going to be the worst even worse that i though i could have felt about a team after an opening day win ever.
The Lions got absolutely screwed.
I'll take the win, but guh.
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
Quote from: thehawk on September 12, 2010, 03:14:56 PM
This is going to be the worst even worse that i though i could have felt about a team after an opening day win ever.
This. I can't stand it.
Well that's enough of that.
The Derek Anderson era begins now, Ogdens.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
Something about process. Whatever that means.
Now....
How about the Bears defense knocking Stafford out and the healthy linebacking corps in full beastmode all the goddamn day?
And how about Matt Forte: Game Changer. And how about.... Fuck. I'll worry about all this later.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
I don't understand how the tuck rule works either, but if anyone's going to benefit from idiotic rules, I want it to be my team.
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Calvin Johnson caught a game winning touchdown.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
Now....
How about the Bears defense knocking Stafford out and the healthy linebacking corps in full beastmode all the goddamn day?
And how about Matt Forte: Game Changer. And how about.... Fuck. I'll worry about all this later.
First of all, don't say game changer.
Second, Peppers at the end of the game walked up to Stafford and asked him if he was ok.
Good man. Class act.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Calvin Johnson caught a game winning touchdown.
But then he didn't.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Calvin Johnson caught a game winning touchdown.
Not so fast, Johnson.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
Now....
How about the Bears defense knocking Stafford out and the healthy linebacking corps in full beastmode all the goddamn day?
And how about Matt Forte: Game Changer. And how about.... Fuck. I'll worry about all this later.
THIS
Quote from: CT III on September 12, 2010, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Calvin Johnson caught a game winning touchdown.
Not so fast, Johnson.
Rug. Yanked. Something something.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 12, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
Well that's enough of that.
The Derek Anderson era begins now, Ogdens.
I hate this team.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 12, 2010, 03:14:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2010, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 12, 2010, 01:22:04 PM
If they bring this back, the fix is clearly in.
And this refs eyes should be gouged out with a spork because he clearly doesn't need or use them.
They didn't call it back.
Does that mean the fix isn't in?
I think it is.
Yup. This one is as bad as the tuck rule.
Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 12, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
I do not understand how that wasn't a touchdown.
(Yeah, I know, that explains a lot)
For someone who doesn't have access to this game, what happened?
Calvin Johnson appeared to win a jumpball against coverage by Zachary Bowman in the endzone with 30 seconds left. On his way to the ground he held the ball in his left hand, arm-outstretched away from his body. Two feet and a knee touched turf before the ball. The ball bounced out upon contact with the ground and the officials ruled it incomplete. Replay review upheld the call on the field. The rule is, apparently that when a dude hits the ground he must maintain possession of the ball for it to be complete. He'd have to hold onto it for a sec or act like he's getting up. That's the rule and they called it right according to the rule. Is it a completely ghey rule? Hell yes. Do the Bears deserve to feel good about a win over Detroit at home on a technicality like that? Hell no.
Do Brian Urlacher and Julius Peppers carry wallets that say "Bad Motherfucker" on them? Probably not. That would be corny as dick.
What's wrong with "game changer?"
That 89 yard TD reception didn't change the game? What about the diving grab in the endzone?
On the positive side, Cutler looked pretty good.
On the positive side, the Bears beat the shit out of the Lions up and down the field all damn day and aside from a few stupid turnovers, this game would have ended 30-13 or so. They got lucky on the last call-oh well. Just cut out the bullshit turnovers and they might not be half bad. Lord knows the defense is going to be okay.
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 03:14:18 PM
Thank Gord the fix was in.
at least Obama is good for something.
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:50:40 PM
On the positive side, Cutler looked pretty good.
If by good you mean lacking in DA FIRE AND DA PASSION!
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:50:40 PM
On the positive side, Cutler looked pretty good.
Thank God that dude can take a hit the way he does. I keep expecting him not to get up. But somehow he does. I know someday he won't. He'll be a puddle of something that used be Jay Cutler and we'll all hang our heads in sorrow as he's squeegee'd off the turf. If I were him I'd hate those linemen and Angelo with the fire of a thousand Aaron Rowands.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 04:15:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:50:40 PM
On the positive side, Cutler looked pretty good.
Thank God that dude can take a hit the way he does. I keep expecting him not to get up. But somehow he does. I know someday he won't. He'll be a puddle of something that used be Jay Cutler and we'll all hang our heads in sorrow as he's squeegee'd off the turf. If I were him I'd hate those linemen and Angelo with the fire of a thousand Aaron Rowands.
Speaking of gruesome injuries, Leonard Weaver's just made me nauseous.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 04:15:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 12, 2010, 03:50:40 PM
On the positive side, Cutler looked pretty good.
Thank God that dude can take a hit the way he does. I keep expecting him not to get up. But somehow he does. I know someday he won't. He'll be a puddle of something that used be Jay Cutler and we'll all hang our heads in sorrow as he's squeegee'd off the turf. If I were him I'd hate those linemen and Angelo with the fire of a thousand Aaron Rowands.
But then the meatballs will splooge over (http://i52.tinypic.com/2lbesyb.jpg)
Jesus Christ, nancies. Fumbles are fluke plays. They'll go away. They marched up and down the field all day long and they dominated the Detroit offense the way they should have except for Lovie's awful prevent defense scheme that's thrown away more games than I can count the last three years. Cutler had a 108.3 rating and threw for 372 yards. Fuck PenFoe until his ears bleed. The run defense sucked balls last year and yet they held the Lions run game to 20 net yards rushing. The secondary actually held Calvin Johnson in check except for one play that wasn't that should mostly be blamed on a horrible playcall. I don't expect 3 fumbles every week. But the 9 minute edge in time of possession? The nearly 300 yard advantage in total yardage? the 21-13 first down edge? Aren't we supposed to be the assholes that look at the overwhelming statistical edge and conclude that the flukey plays were just that? Christ almighty. Go talk to Fro Dog. He's probably busy blaming Charles Tillman for the Touchdown That Never Was even though Zack Bowman was on the coverage. Take your win and shut the hell up. You bore me.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:26:22 PM
Jesus Christ, nancies. Fumbles are fluke plays. They'll go away. They marched up and down the field all day long and they dominated the Detroit offense the way they should have except for Lovie's awful prevent defense scheme that's thrown away more games than I can count the last three years. Cutler had a 108.3 rating and threw for 372 yards. Fuck PenFoe until his ears bleed. The run defense sucked balls last year and yet they held the Lions run game to 20 net yards rushing. The secondary actually held Calvin Johnson in check except for one play that wasn't that should mostly be blamed on a horrible playcall. I don't expect 3 fumbles every week. But the 9 minute edge in time of possession? The nearly 300 yard advantage in total yardage? the 21-13 first down edge? Aren't we supposed to be the assholes that look at the overwhelming statistical edge and conclude that the flukey plays were just that? Christ almighty. Go talk to Fro Dog. He's probably busy blaming Charles Tillman for the Touchdown That Never Was even though Zack Bowman was on the coverage. Take your win and shut the hell up. You bore me.
You're right, but I still hate Greg Olsen.
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 12, 2010, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:26:22 PM
Jesus Christ, nancies. Fumbles are fluke plays. They'll go away. They marched up and down the field all day long and they dominated the Detroit offense the way they should have except for Lovie's awful prevent defense scheme that's thrown away more games than I can count the last three years. Cutler had a 108.3 rating and threw for 372 yards. Fuck PenFoe until his ears bleed. The run defense sucked balls last year and yet they held the Lions run game to 20 net yards rushing. The secondary actually held Calvin Johnson in check except for one play that wasn't that should mostly be blamed on a horrible playcall. I don't expect 3 fumbles every week. But the 9 minute edge in time of possession? The nearly 300 yard advantage in total yardage? the 21-13 first down edge? Aren't we supposed to be the assholes that look at the overwhelming statistical edge and conclude that the flukey plays were just that? Christ almighty. Go talk to Fro Dog. He's probably busy blaming Charles Tillman for the Touchdown That Never Was even though Zack Bowman was on the coverage. Take your win and shut the hell up. You bore me.
You're right, but I still hate Greg Olsen.
THIS. He's rapidly approaching the McNown-Salaam-Enis triumvirate for my mosted hated Bears first round pick. That cock bag has no discernible value. He's a slow wide receiver.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 12, 2010, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:26:22 PM
Jesus Christ, nancies. Fumbles are fluke plays. They'll go away. They marched up and down the field all day long and they dominated the Detroit offense the way they should have except for Lovie's awful prevent defense scheme that's thrown away more games than I can count the last three years. Cutler had a 108.3 rating and threw for 372 yards. Fuck PenFoe until his ears bleed. The run defense sucked balls last year and yet they held the Lions run game to 20 net yards rushing. The secondary actually held Calvin Johnson in check except for one play that wasn't that should mostly be blamed on a horrible playcall. I don't expect 3 fumbles every week. But the 9 minute edge in time of possession? The nearly 300 yard advantage in total yardage? the 21-13 first down edge? Aren't we supposed to be the assholes that look at the overwhelming statistical edge and conclude that the flukey plays were just that? Christ almighty. Go talk to Fro Dog. He's probably busy blaming Charles Tillman for the Touchdown That Never Was even though Zack Bowman was on the coverage. Take your win and shut the hell up. You bore me.
You're right, but I still hate Greg Olsen.
THIS. He's rapidly approaching the McNown-Salaam-Enis triumvirate for my mosted hated Bears first round pick. That cock bag has no discernible value. He's a slow wide receiver.
I'd feel a lot better about all those statistical advantages if
(a) The offensive line didn't look like the steaming pile of catshit that it was last year. 1st & goal inside the 1 and they can't score? Cutler running for his life on 3 out of 4 plays?
(b) It wasn't the Lions. Especially a Lions team operating at half-Stafford.
But other than the line and some dipshit coaching I see plenty of positive. Martz found a way to use the running backs in the passing game since the assholes on the line can't block. And I liked his use of screen plays (successful screen plays! Holy shit!) to try to slow down the defensive line jailbreak as much as possible. Peppers made the impact he should. Secondary was solid. And if the linebackers stay healthy they are going to melt some faces this year.
And christ on a bike does Thom need to die and die soon. That smarmy fuckwit made me want to leap inside my TV and strangle him to death with Hester's ponytail.
Quote from: R-V on September 12, 2010, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 12, 2010, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 05:26:22 PM
Jesus Christ, nancies. Fumbles are fluke plays. They'll go away. They marched up and down the field all day long and they dominated the Detroit offense the way they should have except for Lovie's awful prevent defense scheme that's thrown away more games than I can count the last three years. Cutler had a 108.3 rating and threw for 372 yards. Fuck PenFoe until his ears bleed. The run defense sucked balls last year and yet they held the Lions run game to 20 net yards rushing. The secondary actually held Calvin Johnson in check except for one play that wasn't that should mostly be blamed on a horrible playcall. I don't expect 3 fumbles every week. But the 9 minute edge in time of possession? The nearly 300 yard advantage in total yardage? the 21-13 first down edge? Aren't we supposed to be the assholes that look at the overwhelming statistical edge and conclude that the flukey plays were just that? Christ almighty. Go talk to Fro Dog. He's probably busy blaming Charles Tillman for the Touchdown That Never Was even though Zack Bowman was on the coverage. Take your win and shut the hell up. You bore me.
You're right, but I still hate Greg Olsen.
THIS. He's rapidly approaching the McNown-Salaam-Enis triumvirate for my mosted hated Bears first round pick. That cock bag has no discernible value. He's a slow wide receiver.
I'd feel a lot better about all those statistical advantages if
(a) The offensive line didn't look like the steaming pile of catshit that it was last year. 1st & goal inside the 1 and they can't score? Cutler running for his life on 3 out of 4 plays?
(b) It wasn't the Lions. Especially a Lions team operating at half-Stafford.
But other than the line and some dipshit coaching I see plenty of positive. Martz found a way to use the running backs in the passing game since the assholes on the line can't block. And I liked his use of screen plays (successful screen plays! Holy shit!) to try to slow down the defensive line jailbreak as much as possible. Peppers made the impact he should. Secondary was solid. And if the linebackers stay healthy they are going to melt some faces this year.
And christ on a bike does Thom need to die and die soon. That smarmy fuckwit made me want to leap inside my TV and strangle him to death with Hester's ponytail.
I didn't think the offensive line looked as bad as they did last year. Martz just sends as many guys out as he can and doesn't keep many in. He gambles that Cutler will find his guy before they find Cutler. When the wideouts aren't open, you run for your life. That's the tradeoff you can expect if you want to keep seeing 372 yards passing. I'll take Cutler running for his life half the time in order to throw the ball 20-30 yards downfield and move the ball vs. Cutler running for his life half the time in order to for Ron Turner to call a four yard Tight End out.
Imagine if the Bears had one real wideout. Wow, that'd be pretty awesome.
Quote from: Slaky on September 12, 2010, 05:57:26 PM
Imagine if the Bears had one real wideout. Wow, that'd be pretty awesome.
DA looked good except those times when he didn't. The touchdown drop on the first drive blew.
The fact that the 49ers are getting pounded by the Seahawks despite all the FIRE AND PASHUN that Singletary brings makes me almost as happy as reading all the whiny fuckstick Bears fans call this "a win in name only."
I hate Bears fans almost as much as Cubs fans.
The four sacks, the penalties, the fumbles, inability to gain one yard in four tries. All of these things actually happened. Until they don't happen, the Bears will lose to any respectable football team, home or away. There were some fluky plays and some incredibly sloppy plays.
I will admit that neither the offense or the defense played nearly as poorly as I thought they would. So I'm going to back off of my out and out doom predictions and upgrade this team to the mediocre NFL blob status from which any team that stays healthy and lucky enough to steal a few wins can emerge to playoff status. That's the NFL. I love it less and less every year.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 12, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
There were still 30 seconds left, the Bears had 3 timeouts and would have only needed a field goal to win, assuming Detroit failed to convert a 2-point PAT which, if they did convert, then the Bears would have needed to FG to force OT. The point is, the game wasn't over there, it was just looking awfully grim. If Sean Hill can march the Lions 70 yards in a minute and-a-half, I fail to see how Cutler couldn't have been able to have marched the Bears 40 yards in a half-a-minute. But whatever. The league should have done America a favor and not have televised this game. Those are two bad, ill-coached teams right there, mister.
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 12, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
There were still 30 seconds left, the Bears had 3 timeouts and would have only needed a field goal to win, assuming Detroit failed to convert a 2-point PAT which, if they did convert, then the Bears would have needed to FG to force OT. The point is, the game wasn't over there, it was just looking awfully grim. If Sean Hill can march the Lions 70 yards in a minute and-a-half, I fail to see how Cutler couldn't have been able to have marched the Bears 40 yards in a half-a-minute. But whatever. The league should have done America a favor and not have televised this game. Those are two bad, ill-coached teams right there, mister.
Christ almighty. Because bad fucking teams rack up a 463-168 yardage edge. Three fumbles. Get over it. One bad goal line series, where the playcalling was idiotic. Just try the sneak. You're just like Sean fucking Jensen of the times. Somehow Cutler looked "uncomfortable with the offense" while racking up 372 yards and a 108 rating. I hate you all. Jesus Christ. Wait till they get blown out by the Cowboys or something. I know that it's "just the Lions", but even last year the pass defense was piss poor against them. The defense looks incredibly improved. The offense moved the ball at will and had three fucking fumbles. That's it. Go slit your wrists or buck up and enjoy the win. Maybe, possibly, the penalties and fumbles could be explained as it's the first fucking game and those fucks hadn't been tackled regularly since last December. Maybe. Or maybe OMG THEY MADE SOME MISTAKES AGAINST THE DETROIT LIONS AND THEY'RE LIKE A MAC TEAM AND THEREFORE THE RIDICULOUS YARDAGE TOTALS PUT UP BY THIS TEAM ARE ACTUALLY INDICATIVE OF DOOOOOOM.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 12, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
There were still 30 seconds left, the Bears had 3 timeouts and would have only needed a field goal to win, assuming Detroit failed to convert a 2-point PAT which, if they did convert, then the Bears would have needed to FG to force OT. The point is, the game wasn't over there, it was just looking awfully grim. If Sean Hill can march the Lions 70 yards in a minute and-a-half, I fail to see how Cutler couldn't have been able to have marched the Bears 40 yards in a half-a-minute. But whatever. The league should have done America a favor and not have televised this game. Those are two bad, ill-coached teams right there, mister.
Christ almighty. Because bad fucking teams rack up a 463-168 yardage edge. Three fumbles. Get over it. One bad goal line series, where the playcalling was idiotic. Just try the sneak. You're just like Sean fucking Jensen of the times. Somehow Cutler looked "uncomfortable with the offense" while racking up 372 yards and a 108 rating. I hate you all. Jesus Christ. Wait till they get blown out by the Cowboys or something. I know that it's "just the Lions", but even last year the pass defense was piss poor against them. The defense looks incredibly improved. The offense moved the ball at will and had three fucking fumbles. That's it. Go slit your wrists or buck up and enjoy the win. Maybe, possibly, the penalties and fumbles could be explained as it's the first fucking game and those fucks hadn't been tackled regularly since last December. Maybe. Or maybe OMG THEY MADE SOME MISTAKES AGAINST THE DETROIT LIONS AND THEY'RE LIKE A MAC TEAM AND THEREFORE THE RIDICULOUS YARDAGE TOTALS PUT UP BY THIS TEAM ARE ACTUALLY INDICATIVE OF DOOOOOOM.
You can be pretty fucking annoying.
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 12, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
There were still 30 seconds left, the Bears had 3 timeouts and would have only needed a field goal to win, assuming Detroit failed to convert a 2-point PAT which, if they did convert, then the Bears would have needed to FG to force OT. The point is, the game wasn't over there, it was just looking awfully grim. If Sean Hill can march the Lions 70 yards in a minute and-a-half, I fail to see how Cutler couldn't have been able to have marched the Bears 40 yards in a half-a-minute. But whatever. The league should have done America a favor and not have televised this game. Those are two bad, ill-coached teams right there, mister.
Christ almighty. Because bad fucking teams rack up a 463-168 yardage edge. Three fumbles. Get over it. One bad goal line series, where the playcalling was idiotic. Just try the sneak. You're just like Sean fucking Jensen of the times. Somehow Cutler looked "uncomfortable with the offense" while racking up 372 yards and a 108 rating. I hate you all. Jesus Christ. Wait till they get blown out by the Cowboys or something. I know that it's "just the Lions", but even last year the pass defense was piss poor against them. The defense looks incredibly improved. The offense moved the ball at will and had three fucking fumbles. That's it. Go slit your wrists or buck up and enjoy the win. Maybe, possibly, the penalties and fumbles could be explained as it's the first fucking game and those fucks hadn't been tackled regularly since last December. Maybe. Or maybe OMG THEY MADE SOME MISTAKES AGAINST THE DETROIT LIONS AND THEY'RE LIKE A MAC TEAM AND THEREFORE THE RIDICULOUS YARDAGE TOTALS PUT UP BY THIS TEAM ARE ACTUALLY INDICATIVE OF DOOOOOOM.
You can be pretty fucking annoying.
I'm sorry. I really am. But even when Mike Martz had a Superbowl team in St. Louis his team gave up 30+ sacks. I'm really not concerned about the 4 sacks, provided that the offense moves the ball. They did that. They had 3 fumbles. If they don't, they probably score 40 points. I can't believe the doom and gloom about what was an impressive showing on both sides of the ball. I'm may have misdirected my ire at Apex at you. Holding a team to 168 yards of offense and 14 points (7 of which came off a short field due to a turnover) is not "not as bad as I feared." It's "really fucking good." Just hold the doom and gloom until they actually lose a game or do something more than fumble a couple times. I really can't see what about this team looked that awful besides the turnovers, which can be fixed.
And I am sorry about the rage. This weekend was really, really not a good one. This game was painful to watch, but there's more than enough good that came of it to make me wonder why we have such a predisposition to assume they just fucking blow because they made a few stupid mental mistakes. 468 yards is an incredible performance.
Ok, I've had some time to digest everything and I've decided that I don't know shit about pro-football. Not that I ever claimed to. The Bears played ok and have improved on the D-Line and in the passing game enough to warrant actual optimism that they'll compete this year. That's fine with me and I'm happy for now.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 08:20:11 PM
Ok, I've had some time to digest everything and I've decided that I don't know shit about pro-football. Not that I ever claimed to. The Bears played ok and have improved on the D-Line and in the passing game enough to warrant actual optimism that they'll compete this year. That's fine with me and I'm happy for now.
That's all I ask. Come back next week when I'm frothing at the mouth after a loss to the Cowboys and we'll carve our suicide pact in blood.
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 12, 2010, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 12, 2010, 04:07:50 PM
Ball in hands, two feet in. Bears lose, no?
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2010-09/56113134-12134838.jpg)
There were still 30 seconds left, the Bears had 3 timeouts and would have only needed a field goal to win, assuming Detroit failed to convert a 2-point PAT which, if they did convert, then the Bears would have needed to FG to force OT. The point is, the game wasn't over there, it was just looking awfully grim. If Sean Hill can march the Lions 70 yards in a minute and-a-half, I fail to see how Cutler couldn't have been able to have marched the Bears 40 yards in a half-a-minute. But whatever. The league should have done America a favor and not have televised this game. Those are two bad, ill-coached teams right there, mister.
Christ almighty. Because bad fucking teams rack up a 463-168 yardage edge. Three fumbles. Get over it. One bad goal line series, where the playcalling was idiotic. Just try the sneak. You're just like Sean fucking Jensen of the times. Somehow Cutler looked "uncomfortable with the offense" while racking up 372 yards and a 108 rating. I hate you all. Jesus Christ. Wait till they get blown out by the Cowboys or something. I know that it's "just the Lions", but even last year the pass defense was piss poor against them. The defense looks incredibly improved. The offense moved the ball at will and had three fucking fumbles. That's it. Go slit your wrists or buck up and enjoy the win. Maybe, possibly, the penalties and fumbles could be explained as it's the first fucking game and those fucks hadn't been tackled regularly since last December. Maybe. Or maybe OMG THEY MADE SOME MISTAKES AGAINST THE DETROIT LIONS AND THEY'RE LIKE A MAC TEAM AND THEREFORE THE RIDICULOUS YARDAGE TOTALS PUT UP BY THIS TEAM ARE ACTUALLY INDICATIVE OF DOOOOOOM.
You can be pretty fucking annoying.
But he's right though.
The Bears won, the Lions didn't; the Bears managed to look like a decent team in the process as well.
On to week 2.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 08:21:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 12, 2010, 08:20:11 PM
Ok, I've had some time to digest everything and I've decided that I don't know shit about pro-football. Not that I ever claimed to. The Bears played ok and have improved on the D-Line and in the passing game enough to warrant actual optimism that they'll compete this year. That's fine with me and I'm happy for now.
That's all I ask. Come back next week when I'm frothing at the mouth after a loss to the Cowboys and we'll carve our suicide pact in blood.
These gutless assholes had better beat the Cowboys. Because that's important to me.
Oh, and the 463-168 yardage edge only translated to a 19-14 score. Which proves that Cutler can't MANAGE the GAME nearly as well as Orton could.
Yes but what happens when Cutler lands in the dead pool thread because of acute brain trauma?
Quote from: Night Man on September 12, 2010, 08:50:56 PM
Yes but what happens when Cutler lands in the dead pool thread because of acute brain trauma?
The only sack that looked that bad was the one where he fumbled. Two of them he was just trying to make something happen. He should have gotten rid of the ball. Like I said, Martz is going to gamble that Cutler will get the ball out before they get to Cutler. They only lost 10 yards on the 4 sacks, as well. That's really not that bad. I'd say 3 of the 4 were coverage sacks. I'm okay with that. Really.
DPD. Just for comparison sake, here's the Lions offensive output today vs. the two games they played against them last year:
168 total yards
13 first downs
148 yards passing
20 yards rushing
14 pts.
vs. their average from the two games last year.
373.5 total yards
21.5 first downs
274.5 yards passing
95 yards rushing
23.5 points.
And the Bears averaged just 347 yards on offense against Detroit last year. So I don't buy the "it's just Detroit" excuse. Yeah, that helps alot, but they're considerably better than last year even against Detroit. So we'll see how that translates. I'm optimistic.
And when all else fails, think of it this way...
they could be the Cowboys.
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
You know who the only announcer I hate worse than Franchester Brennaman is? His piece of shit son T-hom. Seriously, Stevie Wonder could've done better play-by-play.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
One thing I'm glad to see is at least Martz is paying attention to what's going on in the game and making adjustments. He see a O-line playing poorly he adjusts to help protect Cutler. As opposed to that moran Turner who would keep having Jay take 5-7 steps drops over and over again behind a leaky O-line.
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Not much to do in Iowa huh?
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Thanks for this. But please add in the penalties/yards the line was responsible for. That matters to me. And to America.
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Yeah, he easily stood out as the worst offender. Chris Williams played surprisingly well. Garza was actually pretty disappointing, especially in the run game. Lance Louis of all people had perhaps the best game.
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 08:07:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Yeah, he easily stood out as the worst offender. Chris Williams played surprisingly well. Garza was actually pretty disappointing, especially in the run game. Lance Louis of all people had perhaps the best game.
I thought Louis had a pretty good preseason and was encouraged about him going into the first game.
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 08:17:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 08:07:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Yeah, he easily stood out as the worst offender. Chris Williams played surprisingly well. Garza was actually pretty disappointing, especially in the run game. Lance Louis of all people had perhaps the best game.
I thought Louis had a pretty good preseason and was encouraged about him going into the first game.
I heard somewhere that Lance Louis was a Tight End in 2008. What the...? If that's true, is that some sort of record for eating yourself into a Guard in 2 years?
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 08:48:19 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 08:17:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 08:07:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Yeah, he easily stood out as the worst offender. Chris Williams played surprisingly well. Garza was actually pretty disappointing, especially in the run game. Lance Louis of all people had perhaps the best game.
I thought Louis had a pretty good preseason and was encouraged about him going into the first game.
I heard somewhere that Lance Louis was a Tight End in 2008. What the...? If that's true, is that some sort of record for eating yourself into a Guard in 2?
If there's a record for eating yourself into being a Guard, I own it.
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 08:48:19 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 08:17:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 08:07:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 12, 2010, 11:28:01 PM
Alright. I went back on the DVR and watched every single dropback that Jay Cutler had in order to count how many times he was pressured. Now, by my calculation we're looking at
44 Dropbacks
35 actual pass attempts
13 overall pressures
5 scrambles
4 sacks.
Now 13 of 44 is about 30% of the time. That's not great, however, my definition of a pressure isn't very stringent. I don't have the exact number, but Cutler completed well over 50% of his passes actually while "pressured", and I didn't count screen passes as "pressures" because they're designed for the defense to overpursue. So many of those weren't really legit pressures. I'd say he was actually in trouble a grand total of 6 times. 2 of the sacks were coverages sacks where he had at least 3 seconds to find an open receiver and didn't, and he failed to throw the ball away. 2 of them he had no chance, so that's on the line. Of the 5 scrambles, 3 were to avoid pressure. On 2 of them he didn't even tuck the ball and run for at least 4 seconds after the snap and only because no one was open. He managed to run out of bounds on several of those, all told he was hit less than 10 times. Meanwhile, he had enough time to throw for almost 400 yards. I think just looking at the sack total doesn't tell the whole picture. This is a vast improvement from last year, when he was pressured nearly 40% of the time and far less effective under that pressure (51.9 rating). Now, we'll see if this holds up against teams that are better than the Lions, but I'd have to say that the offensive line's pass blocking was actually decent. Their run blocking is a different story, however.
Nice work, and good points. So did you enjoy re-watching the play where Martz went max-protect (sending only two receivers out on routes) and Omiyale still gave up a sack? Or the play where Omiyale knocked his guy on his ass, then decided his work was done, and stood and watched his guy get up and sack Cutler?
You've made me feel much better about this O-line. But since you're providing so much positive I'm going to cherry pick a couple plays to remind us that Omiyale still sucks Huey's next fistula.
Yeah, he easily stood out as the worst offender. Chris Williams played surprisingly well. Garza was actually pretty disappointing, especially in the run game. Lance Louis of all people had perhaps the best game.
I thought Louis had a pretty good preseason and was encouraged about him going into the first game.
I heard somewhere that Lance Louis was a Tight End in 2008. What the...? If that's true, is that some sort of record for eating yourself into a Guard in 2?
No. It was confusing. He was a guard in college but then was moved to tight end at the combine because he's athletic and they thought he projected better as a Manumaleuna-type big ass tight end. The Bears still liked him as a guard so they took him and told him to put on some weight.
Revised: Actually, upon further review, Louis was a tight end for two years in college but finished as a guard after he injured his knee and lost some of his speed. Then at the combine they listed him as a tight end again.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
Quote from: CBStew on September 13, 2010, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
I didn't see them playing the Lions. I think your age is catching up with you, sir.
Quote from: CBStew on September 13, 2010, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
<trigger's SKO's rage-filled asshurtedness>
Quote from: CBStew on September 13, 2010, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
I think the Lions are better than everybody thinks they are. They have talent at WR, QB, RB and DL. In the NFL you can get good overnight. If the Arizona Cardinals can go deep in the playoffs two years straight, the Lions can finish 8-8. I'm just saying. If Julius Peppers hadn't ripped Stafford's arm off and fed it to him the Bears would have been in serious trouble. But alas...
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 13, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 13, 2010, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
I think the Lions are better than everybody thinks they are. They have talent at WR, QB, RB and DL. In the NFL you can get good overnight. If the Arizona Cardinals can go deep in the playoffs two years straight, the Lions can finish 8-8. I'm just saying. If Julius Peppers hadn't ripped Stafford's arm off and fed it to him the Bears would have been in serious trouble. But alas...
Allow me to finish the sentence..." But alas, Jim Schwartz is retarded. Thankfully."
By the way, my TOMMIE-JEWISHPEPPERS-URLACHER-BRIGGS-P'NUT chub is working overtime upon my second viewing of the game. I'm just saying look out for me today.
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 09:46:03 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 13, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 13, 2010, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
Bears looked pretty good yesterday. What's everyone else think?
I think that they were playing the Lions.
I think the Lions are better than everybody thinks they are. They have talent at WR, QB, RB and DL. In the NFL you can get good overnight. If the Arizona Cardinals can go deep in the playoffs two years straight, the Lions can finish 8-8. I'm just saying. If Julius Peppers hadn't ripped Stafford's arm off and fed it to him the Bears would have been in serious trouble. But alas...
Allow me to finish the sentence..." But alas, Jim Schwartz is retarded. Thankfully."
THI!
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
He's a dumbfuck. Thing is, the team played pretty well other than the fumbling. And those 4 plays right there. Other than that, he's a dumbfuck, but he's still in charge of a team that played pretty well.
So I'm torn.
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
He's a dumbfuck. Thing is, the team played pretty well other than the fumbling. And those 4 plays right there. Other than that, he's a dumbfuck, but he's still in charge of a team that played pretty well.
So I'm torn.
I'm torn too. That decision is driving me crazy though, and I didn't want the "process rule" to overshadow how stupid that was.
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
Trust me, I haven't forgotten it. My buddy who was at my house said he wasn't against the call but I was. I thought it was dumb. Take the lead, and if Lovie was that confident in his defense he should have been fine with giving them the ball at the D20, have them go 3 & out and get the ball at the C35-40, with the lead.
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 10:46:38 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
Trust me, I haven't forgotten it. My buddy who was at my house said he wasn't against the call but I was. I thought it was dumb. Take the lead, and if Lovie was that confident in his defense he should have been fine with giving them the ball at the D20, have them go 3 & out and get the ball at the C35-40, with the lead.
Well he is a Lions and Tigers fan, that's why.
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
You can be bothered by both of those things, you know.
It's incredibly dumb to not take the lead in the fourth quarter when you can, especially given that Detroit wasn't moving the ball and their starting QB was on the sidelines. The Lions may have gone another 12 quarters without scoring.
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on September 13, 2010, 11:14:50 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 10:46:38 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
Trust me, I haven't forgotten it. My buddy who was at my house said he wasn't against the call but I was. I thought it was dumb. Take the lead, and if Lovie was that confident in his defense he should have been fine with giving them the ball at the D20, have them go 3 & out and get the ball at the C35-40, with the lead.
Well he is a Lions and Tigers fan, that's why.
I was not watching it with DT20.. Different friend. Remarkably, I have more than one friend.
HOWEVA, I emailed DT20 this morning. Response:
Quote from: DT20For 400 yards of offense and only 3 touchdowns I think I would be nervous. Especially against our back seven which is probably one of the worst in the NFL. Mad Martz is washed up and so is Rod (I suck so bad I went 0-16) Marinelli. Unless Uromasudu and Devin (I can't catch ) Hester have huge seasons Bears won't make 500. Forte is over rated as well. If not for that lapse in defense on the play down the side line he would have had 50 rushing and 70 receiving yards on dink dunk passes. As for the Lions, Stafford is done for up to 4- 6 weeks maybe longer so our season is done unless Hill becomes a pro bowler over night. 3 more years of solid drafts and off seasons we will have a chance. Today just sucks got robbed again by good ole' home cooking. Bears fans would have killed those refs if they would have called a TD it was just a horribly called play. Worst call I have seen in the decade or so I've been watching pro football. I just feel burned as an NFL fan and nobody is doing anything about it just more talk by the league how another team got screwed because the rules just don't make sense. We had plenty of chances to win the game and just didn't put it away. How your encouraged by the Bears play against us kind of baffles me we are one of the worst teams in the league you should have killed us 40-14 when Stafford went out. I'd be nervous about your offense the Lions forced a lot of punts and you guys had it at the 50 or inside like 5 times and got nothing. It's only week one but I'm going to be hot about this for awhile just the worst call by a ref I have ever seen and he wasn't even near the play to signal a TD. There was a ref starring at the play as it happened and signaled a TD just makes me laugh in disgust how they called that not a TD.
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
THIS. I know as fans we always say "I could do better. These guys are morons!" In reality, most of them could probably whip our ass in coaching a game. However, yesterday, in this situation, they definitely didn't. Wrong decision. PenFoe-ian Wrong
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
Not that it means anything, but at that moment I was listening to the game on WBBM (BEARS RADIOOOO!) and Tom Thayer immediately said "take the points". Thayer's too classy to have beaten up on Lovie after he elected to go for it--he never brought it up again--but the fact that he was saying to take the points within 1 second of the end of the third down play seemed pretty telling. And though this may mean even less meaninfgul, Mike Mulligan and his phlegm-clogged esophagus was trying to suggest this morning that it was Mike Martz' decision to go for it which seems so stupid it glows in the dark. He offered no proof other than his own fat-filled speculation. Mike Mulligan deserves to die in faux-Irish tavern fire.
Quote from: Eli on September 13, 2010, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
You can be bothered by both of those things, you know.
It's incredibly dumb to not take the lead in the fourth quarter when you can, especially given that Detroit wasn't moving the ball and their starting QB was on the sidelines. The Lions may have gone another 12 quarters without scoring.
I can be, but I'm not.
Anytime a call like that is made the coach will either be an idiot or a genius. If the Bears made that FG and then lost by a FG everyone would lamenting about how Lovie had no faith in his offense to get less than a yard and the touchdown. He would be an idiot for not going for it.
Also, judging by the way the Lions went right down the field at the end there is no guarantee that the Lions may have not gone 12 quarters without scoring.
Lovie took a chance and it didn't work, that's all there really is to it in my mind.
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:54:07 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
Not that it means anything, but at that moment I was listening to the game on WBBM (BEARS RADIOOOO!) and Tom Thayer immediately said "take the points". Thayer's too classy to have beaten up on Lovie after he elected to go for it--he never brought it up again--but the fact that he was saying to take the points within 1 second of the end of the third down play seemed pretty telling. And though this may mean even less meaninfgul, Mike Mulligan and his phlegm-clogged esophagus was trying to suggest this morning that it was Mike Martz' decision to go for it which seems so stupid it glows in the dark. He offered no proof other than his own fat-filled speculation. Mike Mulligan deserves to die in faux-Irish tavern fire.
Eh, I don't like Mulligan either, but from my recollection Lovie is pretty conservative. My opinion of him is that he would have normally kicked the FG. I don't think it's unpossible that Martz was whispering in his ear a bit "Go for it. Go for it."
Honesty compels me to admit that I thought it was the right decision at the time. Must be my meatballishness.
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
I don't understand either. Football is a simple game to figure out. It's 11 on 11.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 11:53:15 AM
Quote from: DT20For 400 yards of offense and only 3 touchdowns I think I would be nervous. Especially against our back seven which is probably one of the worst in the NFL. Mad Martz is washed up and so is Rod (I suck so bad I went 0-16) Marinelli. Unless Uromasudu and Devin (I can't catch ) Hester have huge seasons Bears won't make 500. Forte is over rated as well. If not for that lapse in defense on the play down the side line he would have had 50 rushing and 70 receiving yards on dink dunk passes. As for the Lions, Stafford is done for up to 4- 6 weeks maybe longer so our season is done unless Hill becomes a pro bowler over night. 3 more years of solid drafts and off seasons we will have a chance. Today just sucks got robbed again by good ole' home cooking. Bears fans would have killed those refs if they would have called a TD it was just a horribly called play. Worst call I have seen in the decade or so I've been watching pro football. I just feel burned as an NFL fan and nobody is doing anything about it just more talk by the league how another team got screwed because the rules just don't make sense. We had plenty of chances to win the game and just didn't put it away. How your encouraged by the Bears play against us kind of baffles me we are one of the worst teams in the league you should have killed us 40-14 when Stafford went out. I'd be nervous about your offense the Lions forced a lot of punts and you guys had it at the 50 or inside like 5 times and got nothing. It's only week one but I'm going to be hot about this for awhile just the worst call by a ref I have ever seen and he wasn't even near the play to signal a TD. There was a ref starring at the play as it happened and signaled a TD just makes me laugh in disgust how they called that not a TD.
tl;dr
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
I don't understand either. Football is a simple game to figure out. It's 11 on 11.
I'm just enraged that they didn't try a fucking quarterback sneak. The crown of Cutler's helmet was 6 inches away from the god damn line. All he had to do was stretch his god damn hands out. And yeah, I'd have kicked the field goal. And I've just been called asshurt by Huey. What that has to do with anything, I don't know. But I find it funny.
Ron Turner would have called that play action pass to Dez Clark that always worked. I'm not sure what my point is.
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 13, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 11:25:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 13, 2010, 11:13:42 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 13, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
I just want to remind everyone that Lovie had a chance to take the lead late in the game and chose not to.
That call didn't and still doesn't bother me. The fact that the O-line couldn't get a yard on three carries is what bothers me the most.
That's why you kick the ball....the o-line sucks.
Seriously, swallow your pride, don't be a meatball, take the points, and move on. Maybe if you have the lead you go for it, but in that instance the only call is to take the lead and address the fact that your o-line and fullback can't open up a hole long enough for your halfback to get one fucking yard during the week.
If they were down by four points or something then MAYBE I could defend going for it. But when you can take the lead with a chip shot you take it. How can men in charge of one of THIRTY TWO professional football teams in this country, when so many people think they can do better, be so obtuse? I don't understand.
I don't understand either. Football is a simple game to figure out. It's 11 on 11.
I'm just enraged that they didn't try a fucking quarterback sneak. The crown of Cutler's helmet was 6 inches away from the god damn line. All he had to do was stretch his god damn hands out. And yeah, I'd have kicked the field goal. And I've just been called asshurt by Huey. What that has to do with anything, I don't know. But I find it funny.
I find both you and Huey funny. And asshurt.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 11:53:15 AM
Worst call I have seen in the decade or so I've been watching pro football.
For some reason, this was my favorite line.
You hoopleheads are all overlooking the most obvious reason why Lovie chose not to take the lead. He knows that when the Bears are in the lead, he will revert to his tendency of calling that horseshit prevent defense he loves so very much. So he chose to wait as long possible to take the lead, thus ensuring that the defense would continue to play well until the very end.
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
You hoopleheads are all overlooking the most obvious reason why Lovie chose not to take the lead. He knows that when the Bears are in the lead, he will revert to his tendency of calling that horseshit prevent defense he loves so very much. So he chose to wait as long possible to take the lead, thus ensuring that the defense would continue to play well until the very end.
The best part about calling that awful prevent defense was that he then switched to man defense and left Calvin Johnson in single coverage the second the Lions actually Were threatening. THAT'S OUR LOVIE!
Quote from: Night Man on September 13, 2010, 12:21:10 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 11:53:15 AM
Quote from: DT20For 400 yards of offense and only 3 touchdowns I think I would be nervous. Especially against our back seven which is probably one of the worst in the NFL. Mad Martz is washed up and so is Rod (I suck so bad I went 0-16) Marinelli. Unless Uromasudu and Devin (I can't catch ) Hester have huge seasons Bears won't make 500. Forte is over rated as well. If not for that lapse in defense on the play down the side line he would have had 50 rushing and 70 receiving yards on dink dunk passes. As for the Lions, Stafford is done for up to 4- 6 weeks maybe longer so our season is done unless Hill becomes a pro bowler over night. 3 more years of solid drafts and off seasons we will have a chance. Today just sucks got robbed again by good ole' home cooking. Bears fans would have killed those refs if they would have called a TD it was just a horribly called play. Worst call I have seen in the decade or so I've been watching pro football. I just feel burned as an NFL fan and nobody is doing anything about it just more talk by the league how another team got screwed because the rules just don't make sense. We had plenty of chances to win the game and just didn't put it away. How your encouraged by the Bears play against us kind of baffles me we are one of the worst teams in the league you should have killed us 40-14 when Stafford went out. I'd be nervous about your offense the Lions forced a lot of punts and you guys had it at the 50 or inside like 5 times and got nothing. It's only week one but I'm going to be hot about this for awhile just the worst call by a ref I have ever seen and he wasn't even near the play to signal a TD. There was a ref starring at the play as it happened and signaled a TD just makes me laugh in disgust how they called that not a TD.
tl;dr HURF DURF
ftfy'd
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
You hoopleheads are all overlooking the most obvious reason why Lovie chose not to take the lead. He knows that when the Bears are in the lead, he will revert to his tendency of calling that horseshit prevent defense he loves so very much. So he chose to wait as long possible to take the lead, thus ensuring that the defense would continue to play well until the very end.
The best part about calling that awful prevent defense was that he then switched to man defense and left Calvin Johnson in single coverage the second the Lions actually Were threatening. THAT'S OUR LOVIE!
I initially assumed it was another heartwarming episode of THAT'S OUR DANIEAL! but Biggs confirmed that Danieal was where he was supposed to be on that play.
QuoteHuddled with Danieal Manning afterward. The call on the non-Calvin Johnson TD was cover 3, meaning he was free in middle of field.
QuoteWhat is amazing is Bears would risk Megatron 1-on-1 vs. Zack Bowman, who had battled cramps during the game.
QuoteNaturally, Bears went to cover 2 on next down and had help for Bowman on same play.
Speaking of the secondary - I have to say I didn't pay much attention to them because I was having too much fun watching the linebackers smack people in the nuts, and the Lions didn't throw downfield at all until the end of the game. How much playing time did Major Wright get? I remember definitely a few plays but can't recall if he was at strong, free or a little of each.
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
You hoopleheads are all overlooking the most obvious reason why Lovie chose not to take the lead. He knows that when the Bears are in the lead, he will revert to his tendency of calling that horseshit prevent defense he loves so very much. So he chose to wait as long possible to take the lead, thus ensuring that the defense would continue to play well until the very end.
The best part about calling that awful prevent defense was that he then switched to man defense and left Calvin Johnson in single coverage the second the Lions actually Were threatening. THAT'S OUR LOVIE!
I initially assumed it was another heartwarming episode of THAT'S OUR DANIEAL! but Biggs confirmed that Danieal was where he was supposed to be on that play.
QuoteHuddled with Danieal Manning afterward. The call on the non-Calvin Johnson TD was cover 3, meaning he was free in middle of field.
QuoteWhat is amazing is Bears would risk Megatron 1-on-1 vs. Zack Bowman, who had battled cramps during the game.
QuoteNaturally, Bears went to cover 2 on next down and had help for Bowman on same play.
Speaking of the secondary - I have to say I didn't pay much attention to them because I was having too much fun watching the linebackers smack people in the nuts, and the Lions didn't throw downfield at all until the end of the game. How much playing time did Major Wright get? I remember definitely a few plays but can't recall if he was at strong, free or a little of each.
He was in for two full series. They rotated the three a couple times. The secondary played well when they had the chance outside of that awful, awful call against Calvin. I just liked that they mostly didn't get a chance. I'd like that to keep up.
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 13, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
You hoopleheads are all overlooking the most obvious reason why Lovie chose not to take the lead. He knows that when the Bears are in the lead, he will revert to his tendency of calling that horseshit prevent defense he loves so very much. So he chose to wait as long possible to take the lead, thus ensuring that the defense would continue to play well until the very end.
The best part about calling that awful prevent defense was that he then switched to man 11-on-11 defense and left Calvin Johnson in single coverage the second the Lions actually Were threatening. THAT'S OUR LOVIE!
If you can't beat 'em....sign their old castoffs. (http://twitter.com/davebirkett/status/24414136127)
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
All the statfaggery in the world can't explain why they didn't sneak. Its simple: when you only need to move the ball 10 inches, never run back two yards to try and get it.
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Also, it needed to be about 957 pages longer.
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Also, it needed to be about 957 pages longer.
I think we can all agree that no Yeti post has ever needed to be longer.
I would like to see Chester Taylor take the handoff over Forte in short yardage for awhile. He seems to get lower and move the pile a little more. What sayeth?
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 13, 2010, 09:01:46 PM
I would like to see Chester Taylor take the handoff over Forte in short yardage for awhile. He seems to get lower and move the pile a little more. What sayeth?
I'm okay with that. Forte needs to be the primary ball carrier between the 20s, but Taylor's a better blocker or 3rd down and moves the ball better in short yardage.
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 13, 2010, 09:01:46 PM
I would like to see Chester Taylor take the handoff over Forte in short yardage for awhile. He seems to get lower and move the pile a little more. What sayeth?
I'm okay with that. Forte needs to be the primary ball carrier between the 20s, but Taylor's a better blocker or 3rd down and moves the ball better in short yardage.
Alright, let's do it. (Adjusts headset and looks upward at nothing in particular)
Quote from: PenPho on September 13, 2010, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Also, it needed to be about 957 pages longer.
I think we can all agree that no Yeti post has ever needed to be longer.
I think it's clear I didn't think this through.
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 10:07:23 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 13, 2010, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Also, it needed to be about 957 pages longer.
I think we can all agree that no Yeti post has ever needed to be longer.
I think it's clear I didn't think this through.
I had that one post that one time that was good.
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 10:27:18 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 10:07:23 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 13, 2010, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 13, 2010, 05:49:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 13, 2010, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 13, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 13, 2010, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 13, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 13, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
Maybe it wasn't meatballness, but statfaggery (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/08/19_ftball.html) that led to the decision to go for it on fourth down.
I'm not going to argue this. I had actually forgotten about this study, which came to light to me after hearing about this coach's tendency (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1160256/index.htm) to never kick. If any argument is to be made is that this was maybe one of the times you should kick, to ensure you got the lead, but I rest my point. I feel beaten... by statfaggotry... Fuck
Eh. I still think that stat ignores that football doesn't exist in a void. The Lions had been stuffing the Bears in short yardage pretty effectively all day. You have to take that in consideration. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea to go for it on 4th down, but the play they used was awful, awful. Also, TRY THE FUCKING SNEAK.
Yea. That was what I thought they should have done in the first place*. Also, in regards to that story in SI. One thing I just remembered is that it's high school football. There is big differences in the kickers at that level and the NFL level. The yardage discrepancies may overcome the odds. I would think you'd need to have a pretty good team to do it too.
*thinking of the sneak, reminds me of a story from high school. Our freshman year, we were playing a game against a school that had a good freshman team and they were about 2x the size of our school, so they had 20 kids in the school. We used to run "QB sneak on the nudge" which was just a silent count, blocking was minimal from the line because he was past us within a yard or two. Late in the first half against them, it was 4th and 20. Our coach called that play, and our QB ran it in for a score from 45 yards out. I know the younger you are the more a stud athlete can dominate another team, but still, that play was nothing short of remarkable.
That's a terrible David Foster Wallace impersonation.
He forgot the part about his dad coming down to the basement while Yeti was watching TV and inexplicably exposing his genitals to him.
Also, it needed to be about 957 pages longer.
I think we can all agree that no Yeti post has ever needed to be longer.
I think it's clear I didn't think this through.
I had that one post that one time that was good.
Parts anyway.
Larry Panozzo Mayer of the Bears and his eyebrows (http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/index.asp?mm_file_id=2013&play_clip=Y) explain how the Calvin Johnson rule has screwed the Bears before and how we were told by the rest of the NFL world to shut up and drink our beer and watch football. After seeing the fake punt play, which I remember clearly, the rule actually makes sense to me, even if it means Detroit's economy will be devastated for years.
Out of sadistic curiosity I lurked at a Lion's site. They overwhelmingly prevailing opinion is that the officials were paid off. If they were, it must have been by the ghost of Arnold Rothstein, since nobody in the Bears' organization has it together enough to know how to do anything like that.
Hunter Hillenmeyer out for the year. Sorry, DadPex.
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 04:19:29 PM
Hunter Hillenmeyer out for the year. Sorry, DadPex.
Mrs. T.J. has lost interest in the Bears.
Seriously, I'm concerned what his illness is. Should James Caan gear up to play Rod Marinelli and Billy Dee Williams to play Lovie Smith in the sequel to Brian's Song starring Helen Hunt as the white player from a southern academic school somehow sticking on the Bears' roster yet getting overshadowed by his faster, blue chip counterpart who plays the same position. Of course the white player from the southern academic school will somehow convert to a position where his lack of speed isn't exposed and make the starting lineup for a couple years of glory with his teammate and pal who is a future Hall of Famer. There will be scenes with them eating dinner out and running in the park and working out in the basement and laughing about race (which will be weird because said teammate is also white). Of course we'll have the devastating season-ending injury for the blue-chip player so our white player from a southern academic school will get a full season in the sun as the starter at his old position. Our star player will be sullen and moody and introverted. But then the white player from a southern academic school will work with his buddy and rehab him and get him back healthy so the two are playing side by side again in what promises to be a breakout season for the Bears when a mysterious illness lurks...
Quote from: Brownie on September 14, 2010, 04:39:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 04:19:29 PM
Hunter Hillenmeyer out for the year. Sorry, DadPex.
Mrs. T.J. has lost interest in the Bears.
Seriously, I'm concerned what his illness is. Should James Caan gear up to play Rod Marinelli and Billy Dee Williams to play Lovie Smith in the sequel to Brian's Song starring Helen Hunt as the white player from a southern academic school somehow sticking on the Bears' roster yet getting overshadowed by his faster, blue chip counterpart who plays the same position. Of course the white player from the southern academic school will somehow convert to a position where his lack of speed isn't exposed and make the starting lineup for a couple years of glory with his teammate and pal who is a future Hall of Famer. There will be scenes with them eating dinner out and running in the park and working out in the basement and laughing about race (which will be weird because said teammate is also white). Of course we'll have the devastating season-ending injury for the blue-chip player so our white player from a southern academic school will get a full season in the sun as the starter at his old position. Our star player will be sullen and moody and introverted. But then the white player from a southern academic school will work with his buddy and rehab him and get him back healthy so the two are playing side by side again in what promises to be a breakout season for the Bears when a mysterious illness lurks...
Looks like a severe case of post concussion syndrome. That's tough. Good luck, Hunter.
Alas, no more Helen Huntermeyer references. Alas.
Quote from: Indolent Reader on September 14, 2010, 05:07:25 PM
Alas, no more Helen Huntermeyer references. Alas.
Why not? Over the line? But seriously, that development makes the team slightly less-shitty following a game in which they didn't suck as bad as we feared. Now if something terrible can just happen to Craig Steltz, I'd say, "SUPA BEARS, SUPA BOWE! SUPA BEARS, SUPA BOWE!"
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 14, 2010, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on September 14, 2010, 05:07:25 PM
Alas, no more Helen Huntermeyer references. Alas.
Why not? Over the line? But seriously, that development makes the team slightly less-shitty following a game in which they didn't suck as bad as we feared. Now if something terrible can just happen to Craig Steltz, I'd say, "SUPA BEARS, SUPA BOWE! SUPA BEARS, SUPA BOWE!"
I don't think that's over the line at all - I just figured he was going to retire and head up to the broadcast booth.
DPD.
Bernstein is calling labor conspiracy (apparently HH did not want to be put on IR).
Quote from: Brownie on September 14, 2010, 04:39:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 04:19:29 PM
Hunter Hillenmeyer out for the year. Sorry, DadPex.
Mrs. T.J. has lost interest in the Bears.
Seriously, I'm concerned what his illness is. Should James Caan gear up to play Rod Marinelli and Billy Dee Williams to play Lovie Smith in the sequel to Brian's Song starring Helen Hunt as the white player from a southern academic school somehow sticking on the Bears' roster yet getting overshadowed by his faster, blue chip counterpart who plays the same position. Of course the white player from the southern academic school will somehow convert to a position where his lack of speed isn't exposed and make the starting lineup for a couple years of glory with his teammate and pal who is a future Hall of Famer. There will be scenes with them eating dinner out and running in the park and working out in the basement and laughing about race (which will be weird because said teammate is also white). Of course we'll have the devastating season-ending injury for the blue-chip player so our white player from a southern academic school will get a full season in the sun as the starter at his old position. Our star player will be sullen and moody and introverted. But then the white player from a southern academic school will work with his buddy and rehab him and get him back healthy so the two are playing side by side again in what promises to be a breakout season for the Bears when a mysterious illness lurks...
Implausible. No one would ever watch that.
Quote from: Indolent Reader on September 14, 2010, 05:31:49 PM
DPD.
Bernstein is calling labor conspiracy (apparently HH did not want to be put on IR).
I wouldn't put it past the NFL or the Bears, to be perfectly honest. Employers in this country have a tendency of finding ways of removing prominent union supporters on the eve of labor conflict. Sure it violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, but they do it anyway.
The NFL is really no different.
Stew and I can lead the symposia on these issues.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 14, 2010, 06:29:38 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on September 14, 2010, 05:31:49 PM
DPD.
Bernstein is calling labor conspiracy (apparently HH did not want to be put on IR).
I wouldn't put it past the NFL or the Bears, to be perfectly honest. Employers in this country have a tendency of finding ways of removing prominent union supporters on the eve of labor conflict. Sure it violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, but they do it anyway.
The NFL is really no different.
Stew and I can lead the symposia on these issues.
Good. That'll learn ol' smart Vandy boy from openin his yap. I like my football players treated like indentured servants. Well, the white ones. I've got a different name for the brown'ns, but I been told that ain't fer polite comp'ny these days.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 14, 2010, 06:29:38 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on September 14, 2010, 05:31:49 PM
DPD.
Bernstein is calling labor conspiracy (apparently HH did not want to be put on IR).
I wouldn't put it past the NFL or the Bears, to be perfectly honest. Employers in this country have a tendency of finding ways of removing prominent union supporters on the eve of labor conflict. Sure it violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, but they do it anyway.
The NFL is really no different.
Stew and I can lead the symposia on these issues.
DPD. "Adding to the intrigue: Hillenmeyer is one of more than a dozen players who has agreed to donate his brain to a research group determined to studying the effects of head trauma to professional athletes." - http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/hunter_hillenmeyer_placed_on_i.html. Hmm.
And for the vaunted triple-posting douche crown: The Bears are #1 in the league in total offense and #2 in total defense. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/bears_sit_atop_league_in_offen.html#more). Obviously that means nothing after one game, but "worst win ever" seems a bit harsh, no?
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
And for the vaunted triple-posting douche crown: The Bears are #1 in the league in total offense and #2 in total defense. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/bears_sit_atop_league_in_offen.html#more). Obviously that means nothing after one game, but "worst win ever" seems a bit harsh, no?
Sure does.
Now let's find the strawman who said that and beat the shit out of him.
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
And for the vaunted triple-posting douche crown: The Bears are #1 in the league in total offense and #2 in total defense. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/bears_sit_atop_league_in_offen.html#more). Obviously that means nothing after one game, but "worst win ever" seems a bit harsh, no?
Sure does.
Now let's find the strawman who said that and beat the shit out of him.
I did, punk.
Let's fucking go.
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
And for the vaunted triple-posting douche crown: The Bears are #1 in the league in total offense and #2 in total defense. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/bears_sit_atop_league_in_offen.html#more). Obviously that means nothing after one game, but "worst win ever" seems a bit harsh, no?
Sure does.
Now let's find the strawman who said that and beat the shit out of him.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225323#msg225323
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225330#msg225330
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225333#msg225333
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2282605648_2a6ea29062.jpg)
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:11:50 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
And for the vaunted triple-posting douche crown: The Bears are #1 in the league in total offense and #2 in total defense. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/09/bears_sit_atop_league_in_offen.html#more). Obviously that means nothing after one game, but "worst win ever" seems a bit harsh, no?
Sure does.
Now let's find the strawman who said that and beat the shit out of him.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225323#msg225323
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225330#msg225330
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225333#msg225333
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3162/2282605648_2a6ea29062.jpg)
Oh. Worst
Opening Day win.
I'll get back to you on that. Right after I get that late season victory over the Rams in 1997 out of my head. Not only did Wannstedt sacrifice a draft pick in that victory, but when the Bears got a turnover late in the game, he didn't even feel like he should give the American version of Ricardo Mirerez a chance to see if he could punch the ball in for once in that godforsaken season, electing instead to have him hand the ball off 3 times before kicking the game-winning field goal. Guh.
So what was a worse Opening Day win? The day in 1999 when Gary Crowton and his fantabulous contraption of an offense left Gunther Cunningham spitting mad as he walked out of old Soldier Field and we thought the Bears were going to pioneer a new Offensive Age? Or perhaps the first game after the Super Bowl season in '86 when they let a lowly Browns team rack up an assload of points? The 10-3 lame-o-rama over the Vikings in1991 when a heretefore unknown Tommy Waddle made a diving TD catch from Jim Harbaugh for the difference in the game? How about the Opener in 2002 in Champaign when Marty Booker had over 150 yards receiving (note: could be totally wrong) but also dropped about 300 yards worth of receptions on the Memorial Stadium turf?
I think may agree with you that those may have all been worse.
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:34:02 PM
So what was a worse Opening Day win? The day in 1999 when Gary Crowton and his fantabulous contraption of an offense left Gunther Cunningham spitting mad as he walked out of old Soldier Field and we thought the Bears were going to pioneer a new Offensive Age? Or perhaps the first game after the Super Bowl season in '86 when they let a lowly Browns team rack up an assload of points? The 10-3 lame-o-rama over the Vikings in1991 when a heretefore unknown Tommy Waddle made a diving TD catch from Jim Harbaugh for the difference in the game? How about the Opener in 2002 in Champaign when Marty Booker had over 150 yards receiving (note: could be totally wrong) but also dropped about 300 yards worth of receptions on the Memorial Stadium turf?
I think may agree with you that those may have all been worse.
So you didn't read the CT link either? Sorry. I guess "worst win ever" was mere paraphrasing. Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
Pot (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225363#msg225363), meet kettle (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225374#msg225374).
And what's a CT link? Is that anything like a smokey link? God I miss those.
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:34:02 PM
So what was a worse Opening Day win? The day in 1999 when Gary Crowton and his fantabulous contraption of an offense left Gunther Cunningham spitting mad as he walked out of old Soldier Field and we thought the Bears were going to pioneer a new Offensive Age? Or perhaps the first game after the Super Bowl season in '86 when they let a lowly Browns team rack up an assload of points? The 10-3 lame-o-rama over the Vikings in1991 when a heretefore unknown Tommy Waddle made a diving TD catch from Jim Harbaugh for the difference in the game? How about the Opener in 2002 in Champaign when Marty Booker had over 150 yards receiving (note: could be totally wrong) but also dropped about 300 yards worth of receptions on the Memorial Stadium turf?
I think may agree with you that those may have all been worse.
So you didn't read the CT link either? Sorry. I guess "worst win ever" was mere paraphrasing. Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
DPD, as an olive branch to end this non-stop cycle of asshurtedness, I will say that I remember that game against the 97 Rams and that would most certainly qualify for worst win ever. Of a more recent vintage I'd probably throw out the 2004 game against the 49ers that was started by Craig Krenzel. Or maybe the Titans game that was at first novel for being the first game won in a safety on OT but more painful for resulting in the near-death-by-internal-bleeding injury to Brian Urlacher.
I'm not asshurt; I'm just funnin' you, dude.
Also, I was being serious, and sort of agreeing with you. All of those games I mentioned were probably worse opening day wins that Sunday's, so lighten up. Or light up that olive branch of yours and take a hit, because I don't feel I need it.
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:48:25 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:34:02 PM
So what was a worse Opening Day win? The day in 1999 when Gary Crowton and his fantabulous contraption of an offense left Gunther Cunningham spitting mad as he walked out of old Soldier Field and we thought the Bears were going to pioneer a new Offensive Age? Or perhaps the first game after the Super Bowl season in '86 when they let a lowly Browns team rack up an assload of points? The 10-3 lame-o-rama over the Vikings in1991 when a heretefore unknown Tommy Waddle made a diving TD catch from Jim Harbaugh for the difference in the game? How about the Opener in 2002 in Champaign when Marty Booker had over 150 yards receiving (note: could be totally wrong) but also dropped about 300 yards worth of receptions on the Memorial Stadium turf?
I think may agree with you that those may have all been worse.
So you didn't read the CT link either? Sorry. I guess "worst win ever" was mere paraphrasing. Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
DPD, as an olive branch to end this non-stop cycle of asshurtedness, I will say that I remember that game against the 97 Rams and that would most certainly qualify for worst win ever. Of a more recent vintage I'd probably throw out the 2004 game against the 49ers that was started by Craig Krenzel. Or maybe the Titans game that was at first novel for being the first game won in a safety on OT but more painful for resulting in the near-death-by-internal-bleeding injury to Brian Urlacher.
DPD. I can't even remember the other two games Krenzel started to go 3-0 but I'm just going to go out and say that those were probably awful wins. But that Sunday night game was awful for many reasons--not the least of which is that it put Nate Vasher on the map, and began a long frustrating journey where we were miseld to believe that we actually had 2 blue chip cornerbacks.
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:55:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:48:25 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:34:02 PM
So what was a worse Opening Day win? The day in 1999 when Gary Crowton and his fantabulous contraption of an offense left Gunther Cunningham spitting mad as he walked out of old Soldier Field and we thought the Bears were going to pioneer a new Offensive Age? Or perhaps the first game after the Super Bowl season in '86 when they let a lowly Browns team rack up an assload of points? The 10-3 lame-o-rama over the Vikings in1991 when a heretefore unknown Tommy Waddle made a diving TD catch from Jim Harbaugh for the difference in the game? How about the Opener in 2002 in Champaign when Marty Booker had over 150 yards receiving (note: could be totally wrong) but also dropped about 300 yards worth of receptions on the Memorial Stadium turf?
I think may agree with you that those may have all been worse.
So you didn't read the CT link either? Sorry. I guess "worst win ever" was mere paraphrasing. Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
DPD, as an olive branch to end this non-stop cycle of asshurtedness, I will say that I remember that game against the 97 Rams and that would most certainly qualify for worst win ever. Of a more recent vintage I'd probably throw out the 2004 game against the 49ers that was started by Craig Krenzel. Or maybe the Titans game that was at first novel for being the first game won in a safety on OT but more painful for resulting in the near-death-by-internal-bleeding injury to Brian Urlacher.
DPD. I can't even remember the other two games Krenzel started to go 3-0 but I'm just going to go out and say that those were probably awful wins. But that Sunday night game was awful for many reasons--not the least of which is that it put Nate Vasher on the map, and began a long frustrating journey where we were miseld to believe that we actually had 2 blue chip cornerbacks.
But his injury against the Cowboys was the reason for the post Super Bowl failure, so he had to be good right?
Now SKO's got me set off on some indeterminate journey to catalogue bad Bears victories.
I think i'll stop with this game (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/400399-the-steelers-dynasty-of-the-70s-came-down-to-a-coin-toss), which may well be the worst win in Bears' history.
Fitting that it happened at Wrigley Field.
You guys are both asshurt as dick. Embrace it and keep going. I got my popcorn ready.
Quote from: PANK! on September 15, 2010, 12:03:38 AM
Now SKO's got me set off on some indeterminate journey to catalogue bad Bears victories.
I think i'll stop with this game (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/400399-the-steelers-dynasty-of-the-70s-came-down-to-a-coin-toss), which may well be the worst win in Bears' history.
Fitting that it happened at Wrigley Field.
Jeebus, you're more retarded than your unborn kid.
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
Pot (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225363#msg225363), meet kettle (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225374#msg225374).
And what's a CT link? Is that anything like a smokey link? God I miss those.
Leave me out of this.
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 08:13:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
Pot (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225363#msg225363), meet kettle (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225374#msg225374).
And what's a CT link? Is that anything like a smokey link? God I miss those.
Leave me out of this.
I think any time that Huey and I go head to head over the Bears you're going to be involved in a custody battle. Them's just the breaks, kid.
Quote from: SKO on September 15, 2010, 08:23:58 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 08:13:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 14, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 14, 2010, 11:41:02 PM
Thank God you didn't overreact in any way.
Pot (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225363#msg225363), meet kettle (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7514.msg225374#msg225374).
And what's a CT link? Is that anything like a smokey link? God I miss those.
Leave me out of this.
I think any time that Huey and I go head to head over the Bears you're going to be involved in a custody battle. Them's just the breaks, kid.
It's a butthurtoff
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
That's not what I would call THI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhYklzKQpfs
I don't know if this is what was in TJ's link (I couldn't watch the video), but I KNEW the Bears had lost a game to Detroit on a similar play.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/27/sports/sp-lions27
Fuck Detroit.
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
Does that mean Apex is going to bring The Ruckus?
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
But then we hugged and shook hands and stuff.
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
But then we hugged and shook hands and stuff.
Go on...
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
But then we hugged and shook hands and stuff.
Go on...
-looks at the ground, traces lines in the dirt with shoe-
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
But then we hugged and shook hands and stuff.
Go on...
-looks at the ground, traces lines in the dirt with shoe-
[points out pantsless Slaky in the shrubs under Night Man's bedroom window to the cops]
Put another notch in Slaky's belt for "knuckle children". Holy shit.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 11:51:40 AM
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: Night Man on September 15, 2010, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 15, 2010, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 09:28:42 AM
We don't have a random Bears thread I can think of to post this in. So here it goes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0915-bits-bears-chicago--20100914,0,7455938.story
QuoteExtra point: According to the NFL Fact & Record Book, the Bears will host the Falcons, Panthers, Chiefs and Chargers in 2011. They will visit the Saints, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders. The Bears will host the corresponding finisher from the NFC West and travel to the like finisher in the NFC East.
Cutler can stick up McDouchnuckle's giggy in front of the home fans. One can only hope that Tebow is taking the snaps full-time by then.
Nightman would like a word with you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7207.0)
Nightman's thread is about this season and my post is about next. Hence my quandry.
That explains a lot.
Plus, Apex and Nightman don't get along. They have beef.
But then we hugged and shook hands and stuff.
Go on...
-looks at the ground, traces lines in the dirt with shoe-
[points out pantsless Slaky in the shrubs under Night Man's bedroom window to the cops]
Greatest thread ever.
I, er, would like to express my, er, fondness of that image.
It just got very sexy awkward in here.
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 12:24:37 PM
It just got very sexy awkward in here.
What's Gil doing to that thermostat?
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 12:24:37 PM
It just got very sexy awkward in here.
*takes shirt off*
This is the worst thread on desipio since the last one.
I thought Tommie Harris had a pretty decent game. But now, Warren Sapp thinks, he didn't "dance" well enough with Peppers, it is a story with the media. My question is, why is this a big deal? Maybe I don't understand the way Chicago media works, but from what I saw and granted, there were 6 other games going on at the bar, but the dude played well.
Quote from: air2300 on September 16, 2010, 02:24:43 AM
I thought Tommie Harris had a pretty decent game. But now, Warren Sapp thinks, he didn't "dance" well enough with Peppers, it is a story with the media. My question is, why is this a big deal? Maybe I don't understand the way Chicago media works, but from what I saw and granted, there were 6 other games going on at the bar, but the dude played well.
Sapp's just a douche. Look, no one is still comparing Tommie to you, Warren. It wasn't close. We get it. But he's just asshurt that someone could be the "next" Sapp, I guess. He's changed position on Harris a couple times. Believe it or not, I watch NFL Network pretty religiously and I've heard him call Tommie Harris his "boy" multiple times and a few offseasons ago he went on a long, fatherly tirade about how he was going to work with Tommie and get him back in form...which never materialized.
Quote from: SKO on September 16, 2010, 07:14:24 AM
Quote from: air2300 on September 16, 2010, 02:24:43 AM
I thought Tommie Harris had a pretty decent game. But now, Warren Sapp thinks, he didn't "dance" well enough with Peppers, it is a story with the media. My question is, why is this a big deal? Maybe I don't understand the way Chicago media works, but from what I saw and granted, there were 6 other games going on at the bar, but the dude played well.
Sapp's just a douche. Look, no one is still comparing Tommie to you, Warren. It wasn't close. We get it. But he's just asshurt that someone could be the "next" Sapp, I guess. He's changed position on Harris a couple times. Believe it or not, I watch NFL Network pretty religiously and I've heard him call Tommie Harris his "boy" multiple times and a few offseasons ago he went on a long, fatherly tirade about how he was going to work with Tommie and get him back in form...which never materialized.
What SKO says is mostly true probably, including the douche part. It sounded to me like he was trying to motivate Tommie. He used to slam Strahan a lot in interviews like that too. He especially gave him shit when he broke that sack record when Favuruh laid down for him.
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
The whole fort?
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Really. Irsay is just one pill-addled freak who has to be managed. For the most part Polian gets what he wants when he wants it. Dealing with the McCaskeys seems damn near impossilbe. I've never heard a single person say a kind word about their working relationship with any of them.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Really. Irsay is just one pill-addled freak who has to be managed. For the most part Polian gets what he wants when he wants it. Dealing with the McCaskeys seems damn near impossilbe. I've never heard a single person say a kind word about their working relationship with any of them.
Who tolerates less bullshit?
Quote from: SKO on September 16, 2010, 09:45:35 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Really. Irsay is just one pill-addled freak who has to be managed. For the most part Polian gets what he wants when he wants it. Dealing with the McCaskeys seems damn near impossilbe. I've never heard a single person say a kind word about their working relationship with any of them.
Who tolerates less bullshit?
Depends on what your definition of bullshit is. If you're referring to poorly run football franchises and not making the playoffs, the answer is clearly Irsay. He knows enough to keep Polian employed anyway.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 10:16:27 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 16, 2010, 09:45:35 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Really. Irsay is just one pill-addled freak who has to be managed. For the most part Polian gets what he wants when he wants it. Dealing with the McCaskeys seems damn near impossilbe. I've never heard a single person say a kind word about their working relationship with any of them.
Who tolerates less bullshit?
Depends on what your definition of bullshit is. If you're referring to poorly run football franchises and not making the playoffs, the answer is clearly Irsay. He knows enough to keep Polian employed anyway.
You guys are missing the point, which is that the phrase "turd circus" is awesome and I'm stealing it. We have our new "asshurt".
Quote from: CT III on September 16, 2010, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 10:16:27 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 16, 2010, 09:45:35 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
NFL Rules Committee member and Colts President Bill Polian just told Rich Eisen and NFL Network that Calvin Johnson's play was ruled correctly. He said the coaching phrase that all coaches and officials use is "show me the ball." Johnson didn't do that and hence the play was ruled correctly. He wouldn't even take the bait from Eisen as to whether the rule needed to be changed or clarified - even after the Saints' controversial 2-pt conversion catch in the Super Bowl was brought up. Eisen looked frustrated as dick and he isn't the first broadcaster to hit a wall with Polian.
I ripped the Colts fans a bunch this week but I think I'm just jealous that Bill Polian runs their favorite team while the turd circus running the Bears will never, ever get it right. I bet Polian wouldn't work fort the McCaskeys at any price.
But he'd work for the Irsays? Granted, Jim Irsay looks like Mother Teresa next to his drunk, addled and confused father, but really?
Really. Irsay is just one pill-addled freak who has to be managed. For the most part Polian gets what he wants when he wants it. Dealing with the McCaskeys seems damn near impossilbe. I've never heard a single person say a kind word about their working relationship with any of them.
Who tolerates less bullshit?
Depends on what your definition of bullshit is. If you're referring to poorly run football franchises and not making the playoffs, the answer is clearly Irsay. He knows enough to keep Polian employed anyway.
You guys are missing the point, which is that the phrase "turd circus" is awesome and I'm stealing it. We have our new "asshurt".
Rhymes don't it? Did I mention I'm a rapper?
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
If male reporters can't go in women's lockerrooms, then the reciprocal should stand.
There should not be a mosque at Ground Zero just like there should be no synagogues near the King David Hotel!
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 16, 2010, 10:57:43 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
If male reporters can't go in women's lockerrooms, then the reciprocal should stand.
There are
women's lockerrooms now? For
sports?What a world.
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
I don't recall hearing about her having a teenage sister.
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
A ring on her finger? Mexico?
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:43:08 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
A ring on her finger? Mexico?
Don't do it, Yeti. She'd only marry you to stay in the country.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 11:59:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:43:08 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
A ring on her finger? Mexico?
Don't do it, Yeti. She'd only marry you to stay in the country.
Well if I have a Tom Haverford relationship with her, I'm no go, but if she sleeps with me just once, I could handle it.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Proper sentence structure is something I consistently fail at. Hell, I even indicated that my last football story would blow your mind as opposed to indicating the OTHER HS football stories from the locker room would blow your mind.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
Steak N Shake, broseph
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
Just the one time? Sounds dubious.
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
And listening to Rush.
Quote from: flannj on September 16, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
And listening to Rush.
Back in the day it was Wu-Tang or Fear Factory. Yeah, the ladies loved me.
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: flannj on September 16, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
And listening to Rush.
Back in the day it was Wu-Tang or Fear Factory. Yeah, the ladies loved me.
Nell. E.
HOT SHIT
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
And, if they are, they should expect catcalls and whatnot.
Quote from: flannj on September 16, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 16, 2010, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 16, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
One time, during high school football, there were all these cheerleaders (so hot) watching the game. I swear that one was looking at me. It was awesome. Then after the game, we went to Walker Bros. It was like 4 of us guys from the team. And the cheerleaders showed up! They sat across the restaurant but I saw them looking over and giggling. I slept well that night.
One time during high school football I wasn't on the team so I drove around in my car smoking weed all the time.
And listening to Rush Cypress Hill.
Fuck Limbaugh and the milktoast ghey rock.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Unless they were brownies. Then they were hawt bro.
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Unless they were brownies. Then they were hawt bro.
Like 8 year old girl brownies? Or like oven-baked brownies? We need specifics here. Because both are pretty high on my list, and I need to make sure we're on the same page. I'm on page 113.
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Unless they were brownies. Then they were hawt bro.
Like 8 year old girl brownies? Or like oven-baked brownies? We need specifics here. Because both are pretty high on my list, and I need to make sure we're on the same page. I'm on page 113.
Quote from: Oleg on September 16, 2010, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2010, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 16, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 16, 2010, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: BH on September 16, 2010, 10:54:34 AM
Briggs says women don't belong in locker rooms. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/16/lance-briggs-says-women-shouldnt-be-in-locker-rooms/)
I know that Briggs is going to catch what I think is an undo ration for this, but I agree with him. I agree that women are entitled to equal access with male reporters, but even football players have a right to privacy. I don't see anything so monumentally important about a player's opinions about a game that can't wait until after he has dressed and comes out of the locker room, when both male and female reporters can talk to him.
Yea, I'm with you here. If they go into the locker room, then they should expect catcalls or whatever. (I could tell you some locker room stories as god as my last HS football story that would blow your mind. No woman belongs in there. Sorry) Listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day, he mentioned a coach said he wouldn't allow women in the locker room. In turn, they decided that there would be a time where players would go talk to the media in a separate room. Plus, this chick probably loves the attention. I don't recall seeing a ring on her finger. I think I'm heading to Mexico now.
What about your god stories?
I read that as Yeti thinking he was a football god in high school, and boy, could he could tell you some stories..
And that no women belong in those stories.
Unless they were brownies. Then they were hawt bro.
Like 8 year old girl brownies? Or like oven-baked brownies? We need specifics here. Because both are pretty high on my list, and I need to make sure we're on the same page. I'm on page 113.
Least surprising something something.
Quote from: fiveouts on September 12, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
The fact that the 49ers are getting pounded by the Seahawks despite all the FIRE AND PASHUN that Singletary brings makes me almost as happy as reading all the whiny fuckstick Bears fans call this "a win in name only."
I hate Bears fans almost as much as Cubs fans.
Sounds like firey pashunate trouble may be brewing in SF.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-directsnap091410
Quote from: CT III on September 17, 2010, 09:37:56 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 12, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
The fact that the 49ers are getting pounded by the Seahawks despite all the FIRE AND PASHUN that Singletary brings makes me almost as happy as reading all the whiny fuckstick Bears fans call this "a win in name only."
I hate Bears fans almost as much as Cubs fans.
Sounds like firey pashunate trouble may be brewing in SF.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-directsnap091410
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/16/SP991FF273.DTL
Quote from: CBStew on September 17, 2010, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 17, 2010, 09:37:56 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 12, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
The fact that the 49ers are getting pounded by the Seahawks despite all the FIRE AND PASHUN that Singletary brings makes me almost as happy as reading all the whiny fuckstick Bears fans call this "a win in name only."
I hate Bears fans almost as much as Cubs fans.
Sounds like firey pashunate trouble may be brewing in SF.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-directsnap091410
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/16/SP991FF273.DTL
When I first saw the url, I got excited and thought it was this (http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/02/sp_giants_cubs_theriot.jpg)...
:sadface:
Quote from: CBStew on September 17, 2010, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 17, 2010, 09:37:56 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 12, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
The fact that the 49ers are getting pounded by the Seahawks despite all the FIRE AND PASHUN that Singletary brings makes me almost as happy as reading all the whiny fuckstick Bears fans call this "a win in name only."
I hate Bears fans almost as much as Cubs fans.
Sounds like firey pashunate trouble may be brewing in SF.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-directsnap091410
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/16/SP991FF273.DTL
Quote"Don't base a man's entire career on a dag-gum Yahoo commercial," Singletary said. "It really pisses me off now that I sit here and think about it. Whoever said it, I don't care who said it, it's over. I want to move forward."
Yahoo Sports reporter Jason Cole said he stood by his story, which cited unnamed sources who described Raye's struggles last year to call the correct plays and get them called on time. The source said he was "garbled" at times.
Smith said the report was "ridiculous" and "false." Raye said he bears all responsibility for the offense but does not know what the report is talking about.
"I'm not flawless," Raye said. "I think I speak with good diction. I don't garble anything. So, whoever Yahoo is, maybe he should come call the plays."
Those made me laugh.
"The article is not factual, number one," Singletary said in a news conference Thursday before practice. "Number two, I don't want to spend my time trying to find the rat. In time, the smell will come.
"If the rat is in the building, it will show in time, but I'm not going to go trying to find it."
Is Mike Singletary the football version of Dusty Baker?
Quote from: Slaky on September 17, 2010, 05:31:46 PM
Is Mike Singletary the football version of Dusty Baker?
Racist.