NFL Season aka Bills still suck

dane · Post by **dane** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:06 pm

nugz` wrote:
Rob wrote:
nugz` wrote: this coming from the guy who flipped out in my pm's because i told him the Rangers sucked and the Giants were going to beat them in the world series.
wtf are you talking about?

Go do some Jager bombs bro. Str8 BLAZED dankity dank kronik.

are you really trying to use smoking weed as an insult?

I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:10 am

I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.

ballride much?

you are the idiot who compared two players off of team records. fucking retarded, kid. stick to something shitty that you know about, soccer maybe?

dane · Post by **dane** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:33 am

nugz` wrote:
I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.
ballride much?

you are the idiot who compared two players off of team records. fucking retarded, kid. stick to something shitty that you know about, soccer maybe?

You're so stupid that you make this really easy. Perhaps you should take some courses at your local community college/trade school?

results would say Alex Smith is a better quarterback then Michael Vick this year.

Alex Smith - 64% Completion, 11 TDS, 3 Ints, QB Rating of 96
Mike Vick - 60% Completion, 11 TDS, 11 INTS, QB Rating of 79.8

What part of that is hard to understand or makes you believe I said Michael Vick is less talented/more talented than Alex Smith? Simple fact is I'd much rather have Alex Smith playing QB for my team over Michael Vick this year. I enjoy watching my team win, and Vick is losing games, not winning them. Also your argument about Vick's offensive line being crap, well.. Smith has been sacked far more than Vick has this season, yet hasn't committed even a third of the turnovers that Vick has... Not to mention the fact that Alex Smith has his team on course for a #2 seed and the playoffs while the over hyped Eagles have pissed yet another season down the drain and will be lucky if they can salvage a .500 record for pride's sake??

You're honestly a poster boy for why people hate Philadelphia / the fans of all their sports teams.. Your ignorance knows no bounds and you just spew stupid incoherent bullshit every time you try and talk. Instead of using logic and reasoning you put the blinders on and make personal attacks to try and emphasize your misconceived perception of reality. I'm not some kid and I don't ball ride, sorry to disappoint. But please, keep on posting in this thread because you're really making it too easy, but I enjoy laughing at how stupid and ignorant you come off trying to form a reasonable argument.

Later, kid.

Rmast · Post by **Rmast** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:48 am

lol well u must not know vick is not a passing qb thats why he avg 80 yards rushing a game not counting his rushings tds alex smith is a pocket qb and vick is right there cept with his INT

dane · Post by **dane** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:59 am

Rmast wrote:lol well u must not know vick is not a passing qb thats why he avg 80 yards rushing a game not counting his rushings tds alex smith is a pocket qb and vick is right there cept with his INT

60 ypg and ZERO touchdowns all season while fumbling it 8 times / losing it 3. Try again?

Also last time I checked it was a team game, not a FFL personal stat glory game... Object is to win, right? Smith is doing that this season, Vick is not.

Rmast · Post by **Rmast** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:10 am

Very true but i dont blame the eagles O i blame there D its not the QB that only win games alex smith and vick both have 11 tds each and both great RBs but what sets them apart is eagles D is horriable, SF D is Lockdown 100%.. look what happend when smith played another Defensive team like the reavens 14o yards passing with 1 int

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:25 am

nugz` wrote:
I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.
ballride much?

you are the idiot who compared two players off of team records. fucking retarded, kid. stick to something shitty that you know about, soccer maybe?

Quit defaulting to "ball riding" as some sort of explanation of why every person thinks your wrong. It's getting fucking pedantic.

Just because everyone is in agreement you're wrong doesn't mean there is some circlejerk you're not part of and everyone's out to get you.

Facts are facts. Alex Smith is managing his offense and doing exactly what Harbaugh has asked him to do. He's not turning the ball over, he's putting up offense when needed. It keeps the defense off the field more so they're better rested.

8 fumbles, 11 ints for Vick. Yeah, the Iggles defense is bad, but you'd be tired to with that kind of stat line. Funny thing is, it's like Andy Reid doesn't even know he has LeSean McCoy.

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:39 am

mg_ wrote:
nugz` wrote:
I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.
ballride much?

you are the idiot who compared two players off of team records. fucking retarded, kid. stick to something shitty that you know about, soccer maybe?
Quit defaulting to "ball riding" as some sort of explanation of why every person thinks your wrong. It's getting fucking pedantic.

Just because everyone is in agreement you're wrong doesn't mean there is some circlejerk you're not part of and everyone's out to get you.

Facts are facts. Alex Smith is managing his offense and doing exactly what Harbaugh has asked him to do. He's not turning the ball over, he's putting up offense when needed. It keeps the defense off the field more so they're better rested.

8 fumbles, 11 ints for Vick. Yeah, the Iggles defense is bad, but you'd be tired to with that kind of stat line. Funny thing is, it's like Andy Reid doesn't even know he has LeSean McCoy.

Funny thing is, it's like Andy Reid doesn't even know he has LeSean McCoy

i told you andy reid's play calling was terrible, always has been. scroll up, you can see that.

i proved my point on Alex Smith the last game he played vs the ravens.
you are still not getting the point, overall Vick is a way better QB then Alex Smith is, this was the whole argument.

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:52 am

dane wrote:
nugz` wrote:
I don't think anyone needs to try and use that as an insult... You do a pretty good job of displaying your ignorance and stupidity every time you post.
ballride much?

you are the idiot who compared two players off of team records. fucking retarded, kid. stick to something shitty that you know about, soccer maybe?
You're so stupid that you make this really easy. Perhaps you should take some courses at your local community college/trade school?

results would say Alex Smith is a better quarterback then Michael Vick this year.
Alex Smith - 64% Completion, 11 TDS, 3 Ints, QB Rating of 96
Mike Vick - 60% Completion, 11 TDS, 11 INTS, QB Rating of 79.8

What part of that is hard to understand or makes you believe I said Michael Vick is less talented/more talented than Alex Smith? Simple fact is I'd much rather have Alex Smith playing QB for my team over Michael Vick this year. I enjoy watching my team win, and Vick is losing games, not winning them. Also your argument about Vick's offensive line being crap, well.. Smith has been sacked far more than Vick has this season, yet hasn't committed even a third of the turnovers that Vick has... Not to mention the fact that Alex Smith has his team on course for a #2 seed and the playoffs while the over hyped Eagles have pissed yet another season down the drain and will be lucky if they can salvage a .500 record for pride's sake??

You're honestly a poster boy for why people hate Philadelphia / the fans of all their sports teams.. Your ignorance knows no bounds and you just spew stupid incoherent bullshit every time you try and talk. Instead of using logic and reasoning you put the blinders on and make personal attacks to try and emphasize your misconceived perception of reality. I'm not some kid and I don't ball ride, sorry to disappoint. But please, keep on posting in this thread because you're really making it too easy, but I enjoy laughing at how stupid and ignorant you come off trying to form a reasonable argument.

Later, kid.

since you wanna throw stats around like you know something.

Vick - 9games, 2,193 yards, 11td, 11int - 15 sacks
Smith - 11 games, 2,116 - 13 td, 5 int, 30 sack

even with Vick playing on team with tons of problems and 2 less games, he still has more yards thrown, 3 less td's. so if you wanna call smith better, go ahead.

and for your stupid sack argument, anyone can realize that Vick is a mobile QB, so he is able to escape a good portion of sacks and atleast get back to the line of scrimmage before going down. even a non Eagles fan will tell you, Vick is on the run for his life a whole lot because the O-line can't guard shit. the difference is - Vick has a good chance of dodging it and getting back to the line of scrimmage, or getting more out of it. if Vick wasn't a mobile QB, he'd be leading the NFL in sacks right now.

Vick with a bad season still > Smith

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:07 am

can't believe i even have to argue with some fucking retard that Vick > Smith - anyone who knows anything about football already knows this.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:44 am

I wasn't making fun of you for smoking weed.

dane · Post by **dane** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:37 pm

nugz` wrote:can't believe i even have to argue with some fucking retard that Vick > Smith - anyone who knows anything about football already knows this.

You're so clueless it's funny... I never said Vick was worse/better than Smith, you just read things however you want to perceive them and come back trying to flame me like a little kid. I hope you're better at flipping burgers than you are with reading comprehension.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 pm

wait, did you really neg me for saying 11-0 fuck yea, and the thing about every division having periods where one team dominates?

your life must be fucking embarrassing to live.

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:58 pm

unpro wrote:wait, did you really neg me for saying 11-0 fuck yea, and the thing about every division having periods where one team dominates?

your life must be fucking embarrassing to live.

whats embarrassing is you crying about being negged.

nugz` · Post by **nugz`** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:01 pm

dane wrote:
nugz` wrote:can't believe i even have to argue with some fucking retard that Vick > Smith - anyone who knows anything about football already knows this.

You're so clueless it's funny... I never said Vick was worse/better than Smith, you just read things however you want to perceive them and come back trying to flame me like a little kid. I hope you're better at flipping burgers than you are with reading comprehension.

ok i guess you didn't say, you'd rather have smith on your team this season, i posted stats and Vicks are barely any worse + some better stats in less games then Smith, makes alot of sense, right?

before that you say. "based on how the teams are playing, Smith is better then Vick this season" so you were basing a players skill off of a teams record.

you are still the idiot.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:21 pm

How negative does nugz's score have to go before he's banned?

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:44 pm

Rob wrote:How negative does nugz's score have to go before he's banned?

It bans you for two weeks once you hit -600 rep.

If the systems detects that you've been spam-repped, or have been spam-repping other users, it will automatically take away 600 rep points. If you keep doing it, it takes away more until you eventually get banned. It's all automated (i.e. stop sending my crybaby messages as if I'm sitting in a dark room monitoring 1911 all day to catch all the spam-reppers).

Nerds.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:55 pm

Suh is a pretty classy player. I laugh everytime I see him try to explain away his selfish, thug like play. He's a perfect fit for the city of Detroit~

I would say Vick will never win a Superbowl, but BRAD JOHNSON has one. Vick is simply not a great quarterback. He's only good as a business pawn because he's entertaining. If he wasn't such an athlete (note not quarterback), he'd be in an ally somewhere---or prison. Useless.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:04 pm

Also, it's always entertaining to see the "most talented team in the NFL" also known as the Dallas Cowboys collapse.

They're the Notre Dame of the NFL. They're only covered because they make money hand over fist. There's no winning or actual talent that warrants the attention they get every year. They're nothing but an over rated circus act.

I absolutely loved how the unbiased Troy Aikmen slowly had the life sucked out of him on air when the Lions came back to beat the Cowboys.

Edit: It appears the Cowboys have won 5 straight~

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:26 pm

they are definitely a let down team. believe me, theres a pretty strong love-hate relationship in dallas.

but if you look at the games theyve lost, 3 out of the 4 losses were very close games. some they definitely sould have won (look back as early as the washington game). getting blown out by the eagles is pretty embarrasing when looking how philly has played recently, though. all-in-all, the cowboys have had a decent season considering the fact that theyre not really a contending team by any stretch of the imagination

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:27 pm

oh and on a side-note, i dont think i have ever been more happy that someone was banned except for blackhawk. without nugz, maybe this thread can actually discuss the nfl and not some biased estimate of philly/vick.

dane · Post by **dane** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:18 pm

Swiss wrote:oh and on a side-note, i dont think i have ever been more happy that someone was banned except for blackhawk. without nugz, maybe this thread can actually discuss the nfl and not some biased estimate of philly/vick.

R u high? He was the most knowledgeable and well versed person in the NFL in the entire DoD community... Now who's going to chain spam negative me?

dane · Post by **dane** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:20 pm

Also as much as I hate the Cowboys, they have a semi decent team this year... Not sure why they gave us Marion Barber but Murray's emergence has filled the gap in their run game.... If they had a little bit better of protection for Homo and a working secondary, they'd be a threat.. However I'm looking forward to betting against/watching Romo choke away a playoff game in January.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:48 pm

lol Tony Homo? The H, the R, the rhyme. Brilliant. Do you mind if I use that when talking about football with my friends? Holy crap why has nobody thought of that before?

And the Cowboys got rid of Barber because he simply wasn't effective. He made his mark as a bruising tackle breaker that even had some nice moves and a bit of speed. Eventually though he was hobbled with some injuries, stopped breaking so many tackles, and just wasn't getting the job done. On top of that, he fell in love with his own image. EVERY TIME Barber ran the ball he'd get 2 or 3 yards, crash into a defender, then hop up screaming and gesticulating, because he's MARION THE BARBARIAN. He just didn't seem to understand or care that he was only running for 3 yards per carry, tops. I mean, it's great to love the game and have a competitive spirit, but you need to be more self-aware, self-criticizing, so you can improve. He even injured himself with the Bears doing some stupid celebration.

acetamino · Post by **acetamino** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:55 pm

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:58 pm

And if the Cowboys weren't such choke artists at the beginning of the season they'd have one of the best records in the NFL now, maybe the 2nd best behind GB.

The losses to the Jets, Lions, and Patriots were total giveaways. But from another viewpoint, a loss is a loss and if they can't close out games, they don't deserve to win them. It really looks like they're righting the ship though. Now that Romo is healthy and Murray is emerging, the offense is really coming together. The defensive secondary really needs to shape up though. A healthy Jenkins is one of the better CBs in the league, and Newman is nowhere near as bad as Cowboys fans make him out to be, but holy crap our safeties...

I'm so excited about Sean Lee though. Man what a great young linebacker.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:59 pm

acetamino wrote:

LOL that's a good one. If you really want a pic of Romo looking like a dork, just find one of him with his backwards baseball cap.

dane · Post by **dane** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:22 am

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:41 am

then you have some idiot who pretty much says they aren't bad because one of the teams from that division beat your team. he's just an idiot - the division is still terrible.

If his team beat yours, why does it matter if the rest of the division is bad? The average says nothing about the individual.

I'll never understand the whole clinging to your division being good or bad. I care if MY TEAM is good or bad. It's like an SEC and NFC East thing where you're obsessed with "beating up on each other". All divisions play the same amount of games against each other and rack up the exact same number of losses. I don't know who's less intelligent. The average philly fan or the average SEC fan.

Were teams like the Saints any less worthy when they won their Superbowl? Only mediocre teams bring this up because it's their excuse for not winning things that matter...like games and championships.

If being in a "good" division mattered, the NFC east teams that "beat up on each other" would do well come playoff time. One would think this "feirce competition" would make them stand out when they play the teams from the so called "lessor" divisions, but that's not what we see.

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:25 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
then you have some idiot who pretty much says they aren't bad because one of the teams from that division beat your team. he's just an idiot - the division is still terrible.
If his team beat yours, why does it matter if the rest of the division is bad? The average says nothing about the individual.

I'll never understand the whole clinging to your division being good or bad. I care if MY TEAM is good or bad. It's like an SEC and NFC East thing where you're obsessed with "beating up on each other". All divisions play the same amount of games against each other and rack up the exact same number of losses. I don't know who's less intelligent. The average philly fan or the average SEC fan.

Were teams like the Saints any less worthy when they won their Superbowl? Only mediocre teams bring this up because it's their excuse for not winning things that matter...like games and championships.

If being in a "good" division mattered, the NFC east teams that "beat up on each other" would do well come playoff time. One would think this "feirce competition" would make them stand out when they play the teams from the so called "lessor" divisions, but that's not what we see.

sorry for the tangent but in college football, the strength of a division/conference is very important, at least where rankings are concerned. to win the SEC title while going through that many quality teams with a record like, say, LSU is saying something about the strength of that team versus another team that probably will run the table (houston). national rankings show that leagues are important. if national rankings are affected then under the BCS system i would say thats pretty important.

i get what youre saying though. a particular conference doesnt mean that teams like boise state, and tcu from non-qualifying conferences cant hold their own against teams from other conferences. just saying that under the current bcs system, conferences are very important, whether that shows the true strength of a team or not.

its obviously different for the nfl though

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:29 am

Rob wrote:And if the Cowboys weren't such choke artists at the beginning of the season they'd have one of the best records in the NFL now, maybe the 2nd best behind GB.

The losses to the Jets, Lions, and Patriots were total giveaways. But from another viewpoint, a loss is a loss and if they can't close out games, they don't deserve to win them. It really looks like they're righting the ship though. Now that Romo is healthy and Murray is emerging, the offense is really coming together. The defensive secondary really needs to shape up though. A healthy Jenkins is one of the better CBs in the league, and Newman is nowhere near as bad as Cowboys fans make him out to be, but holy crap our safeties...

I'm so excited about Sean Lee though. Man what a great young linebacker.

Their defense is light years better with the same personnel under Rob Ryan's coordination. Like, they went from one of the worst defenses to like 10th this year.

That's helped immeasurably.

Terrance Newman is big risk/big reward. He's just like Talib at Tampa Bay. He'll either intercept it or get burned, almost zero middle ground.

I'd rather have Revis. He just doesn't let his guy ever catch the ball. Ever. He'll get some INTs, but his coverage ability is amazing. Same for Champ Bailey. There is a screen cap somewhere on the internet from a game where it's Champ Bailey lining up on 1 half of the field and the rest of the Broncos Secondary is on the opposite side.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:46 am

mg_ wrote: I'd rather have Revis.

lol well yeah and I'd rather the Cowboys have Peyton Manning at QB.

mg_ wrote:Their defense is light years better with the same personnel under Rob Ryan's coordination.

Yeah Rob Ryan has definitely had a massive improvement. I think it was Bradie James that said near the beginning of this year that the defense is improving so much because opposing teams can't anticipate what they're going to do as easily now. Offenses were reading Wade Phillips's defense like a book, as it was really predictable and lacked any spontaneity.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:05 am

Swiss wrote:sorry for the tangent but in college football, the strength of a division/conference is very important, at least where rankings are concerned. to win the SEC title while going through that many quality teams with a record like, say, LSU is saying something about the strength of that team versus another team that probably will run the table (houston). national rankings show that leagues are important. if national rankings are affected then under the BCS system i would say thats pretty important.

i get what youre saying though. a particular conference doesnt mean that teams like boise state, and tcu from non-qualifying conferences cant hold their own against teams from other conferences. just saying that under the current bcs system, conferences are very important, whether that shows the true strength of a team or not.

its obviously different for the nfl though

The strength of schedule matters for a team like Alabama or LSU. What I was getting at is when mediocre teams cling to the strength of their conference when their team isn't good. Sure LSU or Alabama can say "hey we went through the SEC schedule 12-0", but it annoys the piss out of me when someone like say this year's Florida or Tennessee acts as though they are god's gift and would go 11-1 if they were in the Big 10 or Big 12. Just because the teams at the top of the SEC may be the best, does not mean the 5-10 teams are anything other than garbage, and many ignorant fans pretend that they are good because they latch onto the SEC name. You almost feel like saying, hey guess what my team could go 3-5 in the SEC as well. You aren't special.

Also, as far as non-AQ teams. I'm not even impressed when Boise beats a good team here and there. They have months to prepare. In a conference you play teams who know you like the back of their hand, you have to prove you have depth to get through injuries, and history (hatred) between teams makes it harder.

All I need to know that teams like Houston (or in recent years teams like Rutgers) aren't good is to look at their number of starters in the NFL. The NFL takes talent and speed. If you got it, they don't care where you come from. These teams and players do not have it.

Anyways, the entire BCS system is a sham. Think how different the championships would look in say the NFL or NHL in the last decade if we simply took the teams from #1 and #2 and had them play.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:17 am

I know this was about the NFl, but college football is still football.

In 2006, when the University of Michigan played Ohio, we basically lost by single digits on the road. These are two teams that gaureteed a prestigious match-up with huge rating, and there was no re-match. If THOSE TWO couldn't secure another game, no two teams should ever be able to.

You can argue, in hindsight, that both teams ended up losing, but that's the point, isn't it? How do we know LSU and Alabama couldn't do the same this year? We don't know, and we won't ever know if they get their re-match.

It used to be you needed to win your conference, and that was one of their major points against it back then. Now, it doesn't matter. Now, Alabama could be the National Champion while not being the SEC champion. Of course, that can happen in the NFL (ie non-division champs can win Super bowls) but their games are actually played on the feild.

Suddenly, rematches are ok by ESPN's experts. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the SEC signing a $2 billion contract with ESPN in 2008

. Whereas, the Big Ten took their larger pot of money and created the Big Ten Network.

The SEC is excused from playing good teams outside of conference because the perception is that their teams are so good. The teams in their conference start out ranked high because of their conference. When they lose, it's to a highly ranked team in their conference so they don't fall far. When they win, it's an impressive win against a another ranked team in their conference. So basically, it's a closed circuit that gaurentees that the perception can never be broken. The faith and trust in the quality of SEC teams by the media actually creates the perception to sustain itself.

Now, it wasn't that long ago that a USC team went to the SEC champion's house (Arkansas) and crushed them 70-3. There are many teams (Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, ect) who historically compete and are just as good as the SEC's best. Granted, many SEC teams are also high quality IE the LSU, Georgia's, and Alabama's that crank out NFL talent.

Imagine if LSU, Alabama, Oregon, USC, Wisconson, Boise, Stanford, OSU, and Oklahoma got to play it out. Maybe LSU or Alabama wins, but maybe they don't. Hell in recent years, the Steelers and Packers won in the NFL as 6th seeds. Yet, in this "system" we would have simply said #1 vs #2 was the two best NFL teams worthy of a title shot. Variance is a hell of a thing. LSU beat Oregon, but I bet Oregon could easily beat LSU. You never know.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:09 pm

i'd like to buy a Nugz.

stop using sound arguments and numbers based on fact to counter bias and unfounded opinion.

you dont know nothing about college football, idiot.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:43 pm

lulz stop ballriding you stalker

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:34 am

Oklahoma State's schedule is brutal. Their loss was a fluke to Iowa State (I think they'll choke again to OU because that's what Mike Gundy does).

Alabama has only played 3 ranked opponents - Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas.

The 'Pokes played A&M (when ranked and thought to be amazing), Texas, K-State, Mizzou, Baylor, and soon OU.

Dunno why people are knocking the Big 12 for football strength, other than my Jayhawks, it's pretty brutal, especially now when you have to play everyone.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

mg_ wrote:Oklahoma State's schedule is brutal. Their loss was a fluke to Iowa State (I think they'll choke again to OU because that's what Mike Gundy does).

Alabama has only played 3 ranked opponents - Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas.

The 'Pokes played A&M (when ranked and thought to be amazing), Texas, K-State, Mizzou, Baylor, and soon OU.

Dunno why people are knocking the Big 12 for football strength, other than my Jayhawks, it's pretty brutal, especially now when you have to play everyone.

I don't think any conference has anything on the depth of the Pac-12. This champion ship game between Oregon (10-2) and UCLA (6-6) is going to be a a barn burner...

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:54 pm

mg_ wrote:Oklahoma State's schedule is brutal. Their loss was a fluke to Iowa State (I think they'll choke again to OU because that's what Mike Gundy does).

Alabama has only played 3 ranked opponents - Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas.

The 'Pokes played A&M (when ranked and thought to be amazing), Texas, K-State, Mizzou, Baylor, and soon OU.

Dunno why people are knocking the Big 12 for football strength, other than my Jayhawks, it's pretty brutal, especially now when you have to play everyone.

The funny thing is, even if Oklahoma State has a strongger schedule then Alabama in the computers (do they?), the justification to put Alabama above OSU is that their "loss wasn't as reprehensible".....So then if we were to look at losses as the criteria, Houston deserves to be in because they have NO LOSS. But...then Bama wants to bring up strength of schedule again, placing that at the forefront, and simply forget the "quality" of the loss.

It's just a win win for the entitled tide~

I don't think any conference has anything on the depth of the Pac-12. This champion ship game between Oregon (10-2) and UCLA (6-6) is going to be a a barn burner...

Why would they fire their coach when they won their division?

Rmast · Post by **Rmast** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:25 pm

they lost to usc 50-0 and lost 6 games straight ;0

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:27 pm

Rmast wrote:they lost to usc 50-0 and lost 6 games straight ;0

I noticed.

There's obviously very little chance, but it would pretty amusing if Neuheisel beat Oregon in his last game and got the automatic BCS bid for winning the Pac 12.

SKiNnTo · Post by **SKiNnTo** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:36 pm

Blame the North! Best Division in football based on wins is the NFC North and 2nd to that is the AFC North! WTF the rest of you fools doing? Colts shooting to be the 2nd best defeated team after my terrible 0-16 Lions of "The Matt Millen Era". My favorite part of all that is the colts are trying to get Peyton back for the last 2 games of the season so it doesn't happen!

Rmast · Post by **Rmast** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:38 pm

that would be funny but im rom oregon so i hope that does not happen ever lol

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:12 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:
mg_ wrote:Oklahoma State's schedule is brutal. Their loss was a fluke to Iowa State (I think they'll choke again to OU because that's what Mike Gundy does).

Alabama has only played 3 ranked opponents - Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas.

The 'Pokes played A&M (when ranked and thought to be amazing), Texas, K-State, Mizzou, Baylor, and soon OU.

Dunno why people are knocking the Big 12 for football strength, other than my Jayhawks, it's pretty brutal, especially now when you have to play everyone.
The funny thing is, even if Oklahoma State has a strongger schedule then Alabama in the computers (do they?), the justification to put Alabama above OSU is that their "loss wasn't as reprehensible".....So then if we were to look at losses as the criteria, Houston deserves to be in because they have NO LOSS. But...then Bama wants to bring up strength of schedule again, placing that at the forefront, and simply forget the "quality" of the loss.

It's just a win win for the entitled tide~

I don't think any conference has anything on the depth of the Pac-12. This champion ship game between Oregon (10-2) and UCLA (6-6) is going to be a a barn burner...
Why would they fire their coach when they won their division?

No to Houston. Houston needs to stop hanging its hat on blow outs of bad teams as some sort of vindication being 12-0 is the issue. Utah joined the Pac-12, and guess what, they're not undefeated anymore. There is a legitimate argument that the body of work to get into a BCS game is entirely different than being able to simply win the game. Anyone can win on any given Saturday. Fact.

Houston's schedule is ranked 111th by Sagarin. It's a joke. No. The Big 12 is the toughest rated conference according to the Sagarin, so, take that for what you will.

Houston belongs in a BCS bowl like I belong in a speedo. Nope.

SKiNnTo · Post by **SKiNnTo** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:47 pm

I'm a Detroit Lions Fan! I watch every game but in the last 10 years I usually didn't make it past the first quarter! Watch out for SuH-RagE! If you get faced masked 3+ times in a game by the same guy....you might stomp him as well!

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:44 am

SKiNnTo wrote:I'm a Detroit Lions Fan! I watch every game but in the last 10 years I usually didn't make it past the first quarter! Watch out for SuH-RagE! If you get faced masked 3+ times in a game by the same guy....you might stomp him as well!

A smart player would actually use that anger in a positive way and punish the quarterback. Then I'd remind the guy, loudly, that every time he wants to play dirty, his quarterback is going to have my 300 pound frame pounding him into the ground.

Acting like you're a thug in an ally doesn't help anything, and Suh is my favorite player on the team.

No to Houston. Houston needs to stop hanging its hat on blow outs of bad teams as some sort of vindication being 12-0 is the issue. Utah joined the Pac-12, and guess what, they're not undefeated anymore. There is a legitimate argument that the body of work to get into a BCS game is entirely different than being able to simply win the game. Anyone can win on any given Saturday. Fact.

Houston's schedule is ranked 111th by Sagarin. It's a joke. No. The Big 12 is the toughest rated conference according to the Sagarin, so, take that for what you will.

Houston belongs in a BCS bowl like I belong in a speedo. Nope.

Oh, I agree with you entirely about Houston. They don't belong.They don't have the facilities or name to attract potential NFL talent---which basically proves they aren't as good. My point was how fan bases (Alabama) and owners of the tv rights for the SEC (ESPN) shift the argument to whichever way suits them at the time.

Although, I do think Oklahoma is going to beat OSU easily.

LSU beat Alabama on the road. Now, LSU has to play in an SEC championship against Georgia, give bama more film, risk injury, and could lose out playing in the national title while bama sits home and sips hot chocolate. Then, they get another chance at LSU, which at most ties the series 1-1. LSU's first win, division win, and conference win would have meant nothing outside of pride.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:47 am

It's the best 2 teams, and I don't really care where they come from. A playoff doesn't necessarily the best team always wins.

It is why I enjoy the baseball post-series set up and Champions League. You get a shot at home and away against 3 teams in groups and the same for out-rounds, until the final (although I think it could be argued neutral site 2 games on consecutive Tuesdays would be more better).

The Cardinals in the MLB post-season won each series. That's how it should be.

We've said it before, any team can win on any given Saturday. The tournament doesn't fix this for me, and it is why I really don't care about the BCS. In fact, I kind of like the BCS drama. Dunno, but just because Houston can go out and beat any team in a single-fixed game, doesn't mean they win a Best of 3, 5 of 7 series. Sorry, but there are legitimate arguments behind Okie State (although this is presumptuous, they still have to win Bedlam). Same for 'Bama.

Should those 2 teams play each other in a play-off? I don't know, but I think people gripe about the BCS because it isn't perfect, but this "top 8 teams" thing is just as bogus.

sevEN · Post by **sevEN** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:36 am

how did i miss this thread? fuark. TLDR at this point though

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:55 pm

sevEN wrote:how did i miss this thread? fuark. TLDR at this point though

Change the topic at will~

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:47 pm

Yeah wtf is this thread even about anymore?...