T1B

War Wagon wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Except at eating corn on the cob through a chain link fence.

Don't think I've heard that one before.

I’ve seen your picture, Whitey, and I can’t stop chuckling at the idea that as soon as you bust out that corn on the cob line for one of your KC cohorts, you are definitely getting an IKYABWAI type blast.

R-Jack wrote:

BSmack wrote:You want to step to me? Give me the link to Mark Jackson's Hall of Fame page. Otherwise, don't even begin to tell me that Elway had the kind of players around him that Montana had.

You really don't know how to read do you?

I see. You're fresh out of arguments so you're gonna go straight to the ad hominem route. Smarter people might have actually tried to support their argument with facts. But hey, it's good to know where you stand. Right?

I kind of agree with R-Jack here. Although I think John Elway is the greatest QB ever, I don't believe the arguement of placing him in another system and then automatically just giving him more Super Bowls. I think John Elway is the greatest QB ever for different reasons and the # of rings on his hand have nothing to do with it. Its that old arguement of throwing Barry behind Emmitt's o-line during the 90s; how can we honestly assume Barry would have been much better than his performance with the Lions? We can't.

But what if Darth Vader had a Borg Cube instead of the Death Star?

orcinus wrote:But what if Darth Vader had a Borg Cube instead of the Death Star?

he'd of definitely won more superbowls than Elway....

orcinus wrote:But what if Darth Vader had a Borg Cube instead of the Death Star?

/ponder

RumpleForeskin wrote:I kind of agree with R-Jack here. Although I think John Elway is the greatest QB ever, I don't believe the arguement of placing him in another system and then automatically just giving him more Super Bowls. I think John Elway is the greatest QB ever for different reasons and the # of rings on his hand have nothing to do with it.

Agreed. The only reason I brought up Elway's supporting cast vs Montana's was to combat the morons who think that Montana's 4 Super Bowls somehow end the debate right there on the spot.

Good point. Didn't Otto Graham win like seven championship games?

Goober McTuber wrote: I’ve seen your picture...

And that's all you can do with it?

Goobs, there's lame, and there's extremely lame... you no likey my pic?

Where's yours?

Something about removing the plank from thine own eye seems appropriate here.

Wow, you really are a dipshit. This after I've afforded you countless opportunities to not be a dipshit.

My bad. Thanks for showing your true colors, and inept shallowness. That mistake shan't be repeated.

Regarding Elway v. Montana, I see it like this ...........

If Elway had been the QB on the 4 Super Bowl winning 49er teams, odds are he would have blown one of them himself.
Bucky, like B. Favre had a little bit of a wild streak.
He was more prone to an individual 'meltdown' than J. Montana was.

On the other hand, if Montana had been the QB on all of the Dungver Super Bowl teams that Elway QB'd, he would have won the final 2, as Elway did.
I'm not sure, however, that Montana would have reached all three of the SB's that Elway did in the 80's.
Elway, particularly in '86, was THE driving force behind those Mule teams.
He could elevate his game and CARRY an offense.
Sammy Winder and Mark Jackson as your main weapons??
haha

Bottom line .......
Montana in Dungver, would have 2 SB wins and a couple other appearances.
Elway in SF would have 3 SB wins and 1 other appearance.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

War Wagon wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: I’ve seen your picture...

And that's all you can do with it?

Goobs, there's lame, and there's extremely lame... you no likey my pic?

Where's yours?

Something about removing the plank from thine own eye seems appropriate here.

Wow, you really are a dipshit. This after I've afforded you countless opportunities to not be a dipshit.

My bad. Thanks for showing your true colors, and inept shallowness. That mistake shan't be repeated.

Bwa....oh, he'll repeat alright. That's how Goobs rolls.

Hey, Tubby, I think that Whitey’s suggesting that he made the mistake, not me. You know, the part you bolded, you fucking moron.

Whitey, the whole biblical thing about the plank has to do with recognizing your own shortcomings before criticizing others’. Posting your hideous grill on the internet was your shortcoming, one of many. Before you can remove that plank from your eye, you’ll need to remove your head from your arse.

Wasn't me who posted it.

Lord knows I would never have posed for that pic if I knew beforehand the nefarious machinations of the camera owner.

But oh well. I can live with my grill... and my face, too.

Gotta' go check on those Baby Back beef Ribs now. :wink:

So then, who posted it?

My bestest internet buddy, Scott. We hooked up for the Royals 2001 home opener.

Had a blast, but that pic getting out made the cost very expensive, for me anyway. I've never been upset with Scott or anything. It was all done in good fun, and if you can't laugh at yourself, you've got more serious issues than just an ugly mug.

Understood. But about 7 posts back you weren’t laughing too hard. You know when you called me a dipshit and some other harsh words. :wink:

R-Jack wrote:
Lest we forget a washed up KC Chief Joe Montana

Brilliant.

If you look carefully, you can still see an imprint of Joe Montanas face immortalised on the 50 yard line at Rich.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

R-Jack wrote:
Lest we forget a washed up KC Chief Joe Montana

Brilliant.

If you look carefully, you can still see an imprint of Joe Montanas face immortalised on the 50 yard line at Rich.

And your point IS?

It's an important part of Joe's legacy - and his last game(?), it shouldn't be omitted. Watching the re-invented Chiefs roll into Buffalo with the 'west coast offence' and getting smashed, year after year was a beautiful thing.

Someone was saying something about supporting casts in this thread, I think.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It's an important part of Joe's legacy - and his last game(?), it shouldn't be omitted. Watching the re-invented Chiefs roll into Buffalo with the 'west coast offence' and getting smashed, year after year was a beautiful thing.

Someone was saying something about supporting casts in this thread, I think.

It WASN'T Joe's last game- the loss to the Dolphins in the 94 playoffs was Joe's last game.

It was also a "beautiful thing" to see the Jills roll into Arrowhead during that 93 season and watch them get their ASSES handed to them by that "re-invented Chiefs west coast offense"- I know, because I was there to see Jim Kelly get his ass kicked by Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith & Co. :wink:

poptart wrote:I'll hold off on any substantive comment on this signing until I see what plays out.
There are a LOT of possibilities here.

When Oakland signed Culpepper the possibility I most feared was that the Raiders had serious doubts about signing Russell anytime soon ...... if ever.
It would actually be quintessential Al to send a message to the kid (and his people) to fugg off, the Raiduhs are movin' along without ya.

I'm not saying I like that scenario, because Oakland would have just lost out on a chance to bring a #1 overall talent into the fold, but I'm saying I don't put it past Al for a minute.

My understanding is that it's now too late for Oakland to trade the rights to sign Russell, and that if they are not able to reach an agreement, Russell will be pretty much buttfucked in the mouth, because he'll have to re-enter the draft next year.
In that case there is no way he'll be close to being the #1 overall pick, he'll lose many millions of dollars, and he will have retarded his development as a player.

Oakland has as strong a history of getting it's draft picks signed and in on time as any team in the league.
They have a VERY strong record in this regard.
So the Russell situation is an abberation, and it is troubling.

To date, Russell has already missed 21 days of training camp, and 2 pre-season games -- by this weekend's game v. SF.
Being that he was not a super-polished college QB to begin with, this is NOT good for JaMarcus.
Once the regular season starts he won't get many reps in practice because he won't be the starter.
The way to GET ready to be an NFL QB is to get your ass to training camp.
Even if he gets in soon I think he's pissed a lot of this year down the toilet.

He's jeopardizing his career as each day passes.

And Al, despite being hosed in every imaginable direction the past 4 seasons, appears to be playing hardball.


Just win, baby!??

And the sad part for 'duh fan is that if JR had gotten to camp on time, there's a slim chance that he could've been the franchise QB you've been praying for. There's the chance that you wouldn't have had yet another season down the shitter.

So 'tart, how comfortable are you in "moving along" with Daunte?

If the Black Hole drafted me, I'd probably tell them to fuck off as well. RACK the hold out.

Yeah, LaDanian "Magic" Tomlinson didnt hold out. Neither Did Philip Leaf.

Dumbfucks.



The Bottom Line is that nobody knows what the fuck is going on behind closed doors right now, and Kiffin said it many times already: JaMarcus's chances of seeing the field this season were slim to none to begin with because they want to bring him along slowly. I have no doubt that JRock will slaughter everyone in camp next season en route to taking the reigns from whomever is the starter. He's too damn good not to.


If our QB's struggle toward the end of the season, JaMarc will certainly make the decision much, much harder for Kiff.


Rest assured, AFC West nutshelves, our future and franchise QB will be pushing your stool in mercilessly for many, many years to come.

Raydah James wrote:
JRock

JaMarc

At least you're choosing original nicknames for the kid. Can I play?


JaySack
JaPickoff
JaFumbulaya
JaOverthrow
Ja-UstALittleOutside
UncleJamima
Jamightwanttoendyourholdout
SeeJaNextyear

Raydah James wrote:
Rest assured, AFC West nutshelves, our future and franchise QB will be pushing your stool in mercilessly for many, many years to come.

You mean the one the Raiduhs are going to draft with the first pick in the 2008 draft?

Sipping some of that Raider Koolaid I see RJ. I know you must realize that J. Russel's 2007 campaign is all but done minus perhaps a few games toward the end of the season, that is if he even signs. The real question now is who is your opening day QB ??

Bucmonkey wrote:The real question now is who is your opening day QB ??

Since they just signed a veteran Pro Bowl QB, I don't think there's much question.

Bucmonkey wrote:Sipping some of that Raider Koolaid I see RJ. I know you must realize that J. Russel's 2007 campaign is all but done minus perhaps a few games toward the end of the season, that is if he even signs.

Did you remove your fucking droolcup and helmet long enough to read what I wrote?

Kiffin stated the day we drafted him that he would be brought along slowly and most likely wouldnt see action in his first fucking season.

The real question now is who is your opening day QB ??

Lotta 'fucking stupid' up this bitch right now......

Raydah James wrote:

Bucmonkey wrote:The real question now is who is your opening day QB ??

Lotta 'fucking stupid' up this bitch right now......

Culpepper isn't fully healed and has some catching up to do, doesn't he? Plus... he sucks as demonstrated by the fumbles on his first two possessions last weekend. The dude is a fumbler. He will always be a fumbler, especially behind the Raiders turnstile OL. End of story.


As of today, isn't McCown #1 on the depth chart?

mvscal wrote:

Raydah James wrote:Kiffin stated the day we drafted him that he would be brought along slowly and most likely wouldnt see action in his first fucking season.

Like they had a choice what with JaMoolie's room temperature IQ and all. It will be even funnier hearing you say the same thing five years and four coaches later.

This whole quote has me laughing.......how many years did it take Philip Leaf to unsurp an average Brees? Even then, Drew had to have a busted wing for them to make the decision to throw that goofy fucking tard behind center. The second part of your comment is equally as laughable......glass houses and all, bitch.

Then again, Chargette ownership has shown a penchant for continued dumbfuckery throughout thier lives, so I expect Norvell's inept ass to be back after the coming 7-9 season for you pussies.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

As of today, isn't McCown #1 on the depth chart?

Yep, and has been since training camp opened.


Pepp's gonna have to work his ass off learning the playbook and trivial fundemental things like a center/QB exchange. Until then, he'll continue to stay at #3 on the depth chart.

Raydah James wrote:Rest assured, AFC West nutshelves, .......

Sig

Wagon,

To answer your question, I'm not comfortable with the Raider QB situation.
Why would I be?
Walter and McCown have proved nothing, and Culpepper, at this point, has a LOT to prove.

I wish Russell had been in camp from the start, getting himself ready for the future.
Al has ALL the leverage in this situation, and Russell (or his people) are fucking up royally by not signing on the dotted line.

All of that said, the Raider offense will be much improved in '07.
No doubt about it.

mvscal wrote:

Raydah James wrote:an average Brees?

You're a fucking dumbshit. Straight up. He threw for over 4,400 yards last year with a 64.3 completion percentage, 26 TD and 11 picks.

Go ahead and break out the list of QBs who "Average" that level of performance, dipshit.

I didn't realize Rivers was trying to usurp Brees last year.


While you may have a point mv, you put a pretty good whoopin on yourself trying to make it, while attempting to cherry-pick quotes.

While you could certainly make a strong case that Brees' stats were better-than-average during 2004 and 2005, the years Cry Me A Rivers was trying to "usurp" his job. You instead chose to go with "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" argument, and maybe could have included Dan Fouts and Dan Marino being "better than average." None of the above adress the claim made by RJ.

The Rayduhs will still suck...

mvscal wrote:His claim is ignorant horseshit. Brees is not an average quarterback.

True. Between 2001 and 2003 he was a below average QB. After that he morphed into an above average one.

Where were your teams QB's last year?

Where was Brees last year?

Bode Brees.

trev wrote:Where were your teams QB's last year?

Keeping his job under center, and not getting run out of town by some douchey-come-lately.

Dinsdale wrote:

trev wrote:Where were your teams QB's last year?

Keeping his job under center, and not getting run out of town by some douchey-come-lately.

You're pulling shit outta your crack dinsy-doo-doo. I guess that's all you can do when your team is in the cellar and you have no QB to talk about. :wink:

trev wrote:Where were your teams QB's last year?

Where was Brees last year?

Bode Brees.

Let me know when Brees holds one of these.