Printable View
My hatred for the pats goes to the tuck rule, but I hate Gruden even more. Two pass plays instead of run plays. The pats would have had no time outs. It is Gruden's mismanegment, but the tuck rule didn't help. Had a very sexy girlfriend who liked Miami, so I guess I like em. I don't like Snyder (or Gibbs when he was coach), so Washington is not favored. A game tonight and the Raiders tomorrow night. Yeah!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
That "tuck" rule was exceptionally lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindwarper
Much gets made about the Raiders leading the league in penalties year in and year out. But I think that it's misleading...
I think the league has it out for Al Davis. I see BS get called on the Raiders which never gets called on other teams. It's like the Raiders have to fight through a swarm of consistent bad calls by the officials. And I don't even think that I'm biased when I say it... I even notice it in games where the Raiders play my two other teams... the 'Phins and the 'Skins (it just doesn't bother me as much then... LOL!).
I mean some calls are obvious... like when an O-Lineman jumps offside before the snap. But many calls in the NFL are one huge subjective "grey area"... to which the Raiders almost always seem to come out on the losing end. It really is a spectacle to behold... and has seemed to have been the case ever since I started watching the NFL some 20 years ago.
The "tuck" rule was one such case... I'd never recalled having seen that call been made until the officials had an opportunity to break it out on the Raiders. But I blame the league for that... not the 'Pats.
My love of the 'Skins goes back to the John Riggins era. Loved how everybody in the league knew that Riggins and the Hogs were gonna run them over but nobody could stop it. And I've always really liked Gibbs.
Snyder is an abomination of nature. can't stand the guy. He's a mettling owner in the mold of Jimmie Jones in my opinion. His only saving grace is that he spends the money trying to win... which is much better than the Bidwells of the Cards who are perpetually well under the salary cap every year it seems. I remember the days well of Jack Kent Cooke who'd hire the best people that he could and then alloqwed them to use their expertise to do their job without interfering. But it looks like the Skins are stuck with Snyder for a while... :(
You act like those days are gone. There are plenty of owners who back off and let their employees do their job these days. There are only 3 out of the 32 right now that are really considered "meddling" that I know of - Al Davis, Dan Snyder, and Jerry Jones. BTW, two of the three had playoff teams last year...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
Take a look at the context of the paragraph that you quoted me from... Notice anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
I was talking at that point about Snyder and I then mentioned his polar opposite... Jack Kent Cooke.
Tonights Raider game will test their run stopping (or lack of) ability. Titans will run and it will be a good test.
That really is the million dollar question with them I think...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindwarper
I think that their pass rush should be ok... and their coverage should be quite good. But if you can't stop the run with the likes of Tomlinson and Johnson in that division, it'll be another long year...
Now that Jim Zorn is coaching the Skins, a small part of me wants them to succeed. He's going to be a good one.
I tend to think so too. Unfortuanately, there is still that unpleasent reality that is Snyder.Quote:
Originally Posted by r'aggro
Jack Kent Cooke was the Redskins owner. CURSES! I thought you were just talking about owners in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
Favre looked good, Rogers looked terrible. Perhaps it was due to the pass protection or lack of, respectively, that the two had.
Favre is a good QB. On what I think overall is a poor team.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidmoose171
Rogers is an unknown. But he's playing a position in which failure or mediocrity is FAR more common than success. GB is a much better team in comparison to the Jets.
If this preliminary data (i.e. Favre playing good, and Rogers not) is any indication... what does this say about GB's choice to dump Favre?
I just do not have any faith on Rogers whatsoever. If he goes on to be a Pro Bowl calibre QB, I'll eat crow. But the historical odds of new QBs not working out is much on my side. I think that GB made a mistake... even in the long term (i.e. grooming a REAL potential QB or signing a decent and proven one in free agency) by letting Favre go.
And in the short term (i.e. this next year and maybe the one after) I think that it'll look disasterous for GB. It seems to me like GB was almost desperate to keep Favre from coming back to GB... which is sad.
I just hope GB regrets their choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
Me too. Although it will be fun seeing Farve come to the Oakland Coliseum as a jet.
I think that GB will... in the very least for this upcoming year.
I have a really hard time seeing Rogers duplicating Favre's success of last year. I just think that it's unlikely in the extreme.
Anyone else drafted their Fantasy Football teams?
Here is my lineup, I'm very pleased with my starting RB's, QB, DEF, K and a couple WR's:
Jay Cutler QB
Larry Fitzgerald WR
Lavernues Coles WR
Joey Galloway WR
Joseph Addai RB
Ryan Grant RB
Antonio Gates TE
Nate Kaeding K
San Diego DEF
Backups:
Owen Daniels TE
Jake Delhomme QB
Derek Mason WR
Dante Stallworth WR
Rashard Mendenhall RB
Tampa Bay DEF