T1B

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:20 pm**

I always pull for the AFC that said: Go Steelers

The NFC sucks

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:27 pm**

Any team that can hang a

on the hated Hee Haws is nailz in my book.

Pittstownh all the way.

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:22 pm**

No self-respecting Cleveland Browns fan would ever cheer on the Steelers. Go Seahawks..!! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Show me a self-respecting Cleveland Browns fan.

just hoping for a damn good game.

Posted: **Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:55 am**

Seahawks.

Just because there are more Steeler fans in this place.

Posted: **Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:55 am**

Bobby42 wrote:No self-respecting Cleveland Browns fan would ever cheer on the Steelers. Go Seahawks..!! The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Show me a self-respecting Cleveland Browns fan.

just hoping for a damn good game.

OUCH!

...i hate it. no, i really hate it. PISSPUKE is going to WIN.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:32 am**

The over

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:11 pm**

I'll pull for the Steelers because I like Cowher and Big Ben but I am sick and tired of all this Bettis crap. Yes, he was good but he isn't one of the main cogs in this team anymore. If the Steelers win it will be because his team wins (not because he carries the team). And hell, if I were Parker and carried for 1200 yards w/ only 4TD's and lard ass gets 9 TD's, I would be a little pissed.

He will only be used on short-yardage situations where one could also insert a fullback and achieve the same goal.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:58 pm**

Sky wrote:I'll pull for the Steelers because I like Cowher and Big Ben but I am sick and tired of all this Bettis crap. Yes, he was good but he isn't one of the main cogs in this team anymore. If the Steelers win it will be because his team wins (not because he carries the team). And hell, if I were Parker and carried for 1200 yards w/ only 4TD's and lard ass gets 9 TD's, I would be a little pissed.

He will only be used on short-yardage situations where one could also insert a fullback and achieve the same goal.

It's all good. Parker had Bettis on his fantasy team.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:02 pm**

Steelers

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:16 pm**

BSmack wrote:It's all good. Parker had Bettis on his fantasy team.

Yeah, great, we care about fantasy pts at this point. Only played in 12 of 16 games, averaged 30 ypg, and will have about as much affect on this game as cheap-shot artist Kimo von Oelhoffen. Oh wait...

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:22 pm**

Sky wrote:
BSmack wrote:It's all good. Parker had Bettis on his fantasy team.
Yeah, great, we care about fantasy pts at this point. Only played in 12 of 16 games, averaged 30 ypg, and will have about as much affect on this game as cheap-shot artist Kimo von Oelhoffen. Oh wait...

I love the smell of Bungles fan melting in the morning...

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:24 pm**

Sky wrote:He will only be used on short-yardage situations where one could also insert a fullback and achieve the same goal.

Remind me again which player in league history was/is the most effective in short yardage situations?

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:36 pm**

^^^

The Fridge ? :?

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:46 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Sky wrote:He will only be used on short-yardage situations where one could also insert a fullback and achieve the same goal.
Remind me again which player in league history was/is the most effective in short yardage situations?

Let us not forget that the Bungles would have won a couple of Super Bowls if they had a back who could convert in short yardage situations. Ironic then that a Bungles fan would be shortchanging the value of a great short yardage back.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:36 pm**

You might be correct if Kimo hadn't made the same move toward Peyton. But you probably can't put that much thought into something, can you?

Well hell, you wouldn't have even been playing Indy had Palmer not gone out.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:44 pm**

BSmack wrote: Let us not forget that the Bungles would have won a couple of Super Bowls if they had a back who could convert in short yardage situations.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

And did I mention BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA?

Sin,
The Greatest Player To Ever Live,
John Candy,
Ninersfan

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:50 pm**

It's not who...it what I'm rooting for......a good game. I think there's a very good chance of that happening.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:04 pm**

Sky wrote:You might be correct if Kimo hadn't made the same move toward Peyton. But you probably can't put that much thought into something, can you?

Well hell, you wouldn't have even been playing Indy had Palmer not gone out.

Bitter much?

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:15 am**

You almost make me want to root against you. No, as a Bengals fan, I have gotten used to it, hell making the playoffs is good enough.

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:13 am**

BSmack wrote: Let us not forget that the Bungles would have won a couple of Super Bowls if they had a back who could convert in short yardage situations. Ironic then that a Bungles fan would be shortchanging the value of a great short yardage back.

To be fair on two counts:

1- Pete Johnson was a pretty damn good short yardage back, he just failed to convert when it counted most. Hence, pretty damn good and not great.

2- Even if your point is dead on, that only gives Cincy 1 SB title. The other SF loss had nothing to do with a short yardage back (Ickey was a shuffling fool that year) but more to do with 3 things:
- Stanley Wilson was a coke head
- Tim Krumrie shredded his ankle in the 1st quarter
- that prick Montana wasn't half bad in a 2 minute drill

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:56 am**

As a Redskins fan living in Iggles territory,
I'll go with my state of residence and say
"GO STEELERS!!!"

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:18 am**

It took Seattle 30 years to get here! The Hawks are going to do what they’ve been doing all year… Show up quietly, take names and kick ASS!
Screw Pittsburgh! Good job, but the fun is over, 4 rings is all you get!

Seahawks 24
Steelers 14

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:33 am**

Cueball wrote:The over

I'll take the under if you want to go 10 or 20 for kicks

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:03 pm**

Damn, I just checked into this thread for the first time in about... a week.

I see Sky's STILL having trouble purging the football tee from his ass end? Long ago, I used to like this guy in the CFB forum... but I hate whiners, hence the 180.

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:49 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: It's a Green and Yellow world, we're just living in it.

Amen, brother.

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:06 pm**

Steelers 24-17

Posted: **Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:08 pm**

I'm jumped on the West Coast Bandwagon, SEAHAWKS Baby!

Posted: **Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:21 pm**

OK, here's who I'm rooting for, in order --

The Steelers

Tax Increases

Famine

Cancer

A very large meteor hitting my house

The Miami Hurricanes

Budweiser to get a monopoly on the American beer market

The Seahawks

I think I've probably overrated the Seahawks, though.

Posted: **Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:27 pm**

If I put to money on it... I would put $10 on the Steelers to win.

as far as rooting.. I root for a tight game that goes down to the final play..

I root for the Seahawks to make it a game. If they do, I will root more strongly for them..

I like the Matt Haselback story.. more than I like "Big Ben"
I like Shaun Alexander over J. Bus Bettis.

Tatupu is a good story.. Polamalu is a better story.

I like the SeaHawk receivers over the Steeler receivers.

I don't like either coach but I like Cowher less.

I am an AFC guy and I think the AFC is head and shoulders better than the NFC. That is why my $$ would be on the Steelers while I root for the Seahawks!!

T1B

Non-Steeler/Non-SeahawkFan: Who are you rooting for?