T1B

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:37 pm**

612 yds haha

wtf -- is that real?
That was like 3 games for Bobby Douglass.

Even Rump has been run more than the Texan backs.

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:48 pm**

Headhunter wrote:Ok, I thought I was done with you, but I just have to point out one thing

If you wanted to make a point about effective running back tandems I think I might start with, well I don't know. let's start with the Super Bowl champs. Addai and Rhodes combined for over 1700 yards. that's getting it done.

Last year both Super Bowl teams, 5 other playoff teams (Dallas, New England, New Orleans, San Diego and Seattle.) had tandems who rushed for more than 500 yds each.

Many of those teams 2nd rusher had higher totals than Houston's leading rusher. Ron Dayne had 612 yards last year. When the top two rushers on your team barely break 1000 yds combined, you STFU about them being a successful RB tandem.

You may now resume being a tard.

Oh my God, you are by far the dumbest fucking person ever.

I was talking about talent level. Brandon Jackson and DeShawn Wynn are no Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai nor are they Marion Barber and Julius Jones. Houston was able to muster 6 wins (3 of them coming soley on their running game) last year without the services of a QB and a defense. Sure, the defense showed flashes, but that was it. I was simply pointing out that Green Bay has a good QB, they have a good defense, and that running back tandem could indeed work. If Houston was able to scrape together 6 wins last year with no passing game and a shaky defense, then Green Bay can easily grab 9 Ws with the services of a good QB and a defense.

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:42 pm**

Ok, let me get this straight. you're saying that Green Bay's running back tandem sucks, right? Because that's exactly what I'm saying about the Dayne and Lundi.

So you're saying that a fucked up, piece of shit, running back tandem can muster 3 fucking wins, right?

Light coming on yet, douche?

You're either talking about effective running back tandems (which the 2006 Texans do not qualify for) or having a couple of douchnozzles carrying the rock and still scraping out 3 wins based on the running game.

Which is it?

Should Goobs be elated that the pack has an effective tandem, or should he cry in his milk because they can be compared to the 2006 Texans.

They have enough there to have a serviceable running game. I know this because the Texans were able to this last year with the services of Ron Dayne, Samkon Gado, and Wali Lundy.

1298 yards between 3 backs for an entire year is NOT a serviceable running game.

Let me know when you catch up with the rest of the class.

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:30 pm**

Headhunter wrote:Should Goobs be elated that the pack has an effective tandem, or should he cry in his milk because they can be compared to the 2006 Texans.

Goobs is crying in his beer because über-tard CrumpledFuckstain has pegged the Packers to win 9 games. Kiss. Of. Death.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:26 am**

1. Cheatin' Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Chargers
5. Doinks

28. Chefs
29. Raiduhs
30. Bills
31. Jest
32, Falcons

The Pack is gonna take a beatdown vs. SD this week - give the 4.5 and take that to the bank.

Watching the Chefs is a Doctors recomended alternative to Lunesta

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:44 am**

Oh ye of little faith...

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:10 pm**

KC Scott wrote:1. Cheatin' Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Chargers
5. Doinks

28. Chefs
29. Raiduhs
30. Bills
31. Jest
32, Falcons

The Pack is gonna take a beatdown vs. SD this week - give the 4.5 and take that to the bank.

Watching the Chefs is a Doctors recomended alternative to Lunesta

So the Donks squeek....SQUEEK....by two teams in your bottom five and you see fit to put them in your top 5. I get it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:19 pm**

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
So the Donks squeek....SQUEEK....by two teams in your bottom five and you see fit to put them in your top 5. I get it.

So who would you have there?

If your answer is an NFC team, then your really not paying attention

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:01 pm**

rozy wrote:That is TWICE now someone has picked the Packers.

Could someone point me to the NFL forum since this resembles more of a shit troll convention?

Newsflash, Shoalz, your team and my team both are better than Green Bay at virtually every single skill position on offense. Every one of them.

RACK HH dismantling Rumpleshitstain, btw. But the 'pokes still suck out loud, 'specially on defense.

1. Patriots
2. Steelers

3-32 everyone else so far with the Pokes, Texans, Colts, and Chargers having just a slight nose of lead among them.

Bad, bad troll. Give me BACK MY PASSWORD!!!

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:33 pm**

Joe in PB wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:
rozy wrote:Newsflash, Shoalz, your team and my team both are better than Green Bay at virtually every single skill position on offense. Every one of them.

The Packers are better than the Lions because they actually have a defense...not just a front 4. I'd advice everyone to temper their views on the Lions because they are one major hit on Kitna away from being a team that probably isn't capable of winning a single game. They're 2-0 because they've beaten two of the worst teams in the NFL not because they're actually good.
Good take Shoalzie. The Lions are improved no doubt, but any team is only as strong as its weakest link, and ineffective or inconsistent defense is a major weak link.

I think you can throw in the fact they can't run the ball worth a damn either. Bell has 121 yards in 3 games. Jones is back in the fold and got a short yardage TD today but I don't think he's enough to improve the running game that much. The secondary is putrid...McNabb proved that today. Any QB worth a crap should be able to pitch for 300+ on these guys. Kitna is going to put up crazy yardage numbers this year but a lot of it will be because they're trailing in games and it's their only way to get back in games by throwing and throwing often.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:10 pm**

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
KC Scott wrote:1. Cheatin' Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Chargers
5. Doinks

28. Chefs
29. Raiduhs
30. Bills
31. Jest
32, Falcons

The Pack is gonna take a beatdown vs. SD this week - give the 4.5 and take that to the bank.

Take it to the bank? No wonder why you live in a trailer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Packers SCOREBOARD BITCH

Watching the Chefs is a Doctors recomended alternative to Lunesta
So the Donks squeek....SQUEEK....by two teams in your bottom five and you see fit to put them in your top 5. I get it.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:38 am**

The only list the Chargers belong on this week is the bottom 5.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:55 am**

Yeah, no shit. Does anyone still want to argue that the Packers don't belong in the top 5? Didn't think so. Go fuck yourselves.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:09 am**

KC Scott wrote: The Pack is gonna take a beatdown vs. SD this week - give the 4.5 and take that to the bank.

Much like your advice regarding the stock market, it's a safer bet to keep savings in a coffee can buried in the back yard.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:13 am**

War Wagon wrote:
KC Scott wrote: The Pack is gonna take a beatdown vs. SD this week - give the 4.5 and take that to the bank.
Much like your advice regarding the stock market, it's a safer bet to keep savings in a coffee can buried in the back yard.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:06 pm**

1. Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Cowgirls
5. Packers

28. Browns
29. Rams
30. Dolphins
31. Bills
32. Falcons

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:54 pm**

I enjoy seeing the Steelers all over the top 5 lists here. Every media outlet and loudmouthed asshole I've read or heard from prior to the regular season had us finishing 3rd in the AFC north (with Cincy first - I know it's early but thats not going to happen) and not even on the map as far as conference-wide greats. They will continue to perform as they face some real challenges (NFC West is a joke). Green Bay looked sharp yesterday too, I enjoyed watching them scat upon SD.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:21 pm**

jiminphilly wrote:1. Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Cowgirls
5. Packers

28. Browns
29. Rams
30. Dolphins
31. Bills
32. Falcons

That had to hurt to type that out.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:04 pm**

Headhunter wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:1. Pats
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Cowgirls
5. Packers

28. Browns
29. Rams
30. Dolphins
31. Bills
32. Falcons

That had to hurt to type that out.

Not really- I'm fairly objective. If the Bears didn't have a JV QB as their starter, they might have made a game of it. That being said, Romo looks sharp and Marion Barber is a beast.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:23 pm**

MickBastard wrote:I enjoy seeing the Steelers all over the top 5 lists here. Every media outlet and loudmouthed asshole I've read or heard from prior to the regular season had us finishing 3rd in the AFC north (with Cincy first - I know it's early but thats not going to happen) and not even on the map as far as conference-wide greats. They will continue to perform as they face some real challenges (NFC West is a joke). Green Bay looked sharp yesterday too, I enjoyed watching them scat upon SD.

I'm loving it too. What I'm not loving is that you're not posting more Steelers takes. Step up bro.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:40 pm**

Nostradamus wrote: My pick of Dallas will be justified after marching into Soldier Field and spanking the defending NFC champs.

I know I know, the Boys played against a JV QB....blah, blah, blah.

1. Pats
2. Colts
3. Boys
4. Steelers
5. Packers

28. Rams
29. Vikings
30. Chiefs
31. Bills
32. Falcons

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:43 am**

Top 5 unchanged although I was quite impressed with what Dallas did to the Bears...

Shoalzie wrote:1. Patriots
2. Colts
3. Steelers
4. Cowboys
5. Packers

Removing the Saints from the bottom 5...I'm expecting a win tonight.

28. Lions...back where they belong
29. Dolphins
30. Falcons
31. Rams
32. Bills

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:55 am**

DallasFanatic wrote: 29. Vikings
30. Chiefs

Nice troll effort.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:51 am**

War Wagon wrote:
DallasFanatic wrote: 29. Vikings
30. Chiefs
Nice troll effort.

I rated the Vikings higher because they have a black quarterback, who is unfairly criticized by all you meanies.

To be honest, I think the bottom five I listed suck dick, and it doesn't matter what number they fall under. I think they are all tied for 32nd.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:17 am**

DallasFanatic wrote: To be honest, I think the bottom five I listed suck dick, and it doesn't matter what number they fall under. I think they are all tied for 32nd.

Then save yourself some keystrokes, 'cause you rated two teams who have 1, count 'em ONE win each below several that have none.

To be honest, I'd call you an arrogant, ignorant, myopic Cowsnatch fan who doesn't even live in Texass, but at the same time I see you working.

You get a pass, 'cause you make me smile.

Don't let it go to your head, cowpattie.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:44 am**

1 - NE
2 - PIT
3 - IND
4 - DAL
5 - GB

28 - NO
29 - MIA
30 - STL
31 - ATL
32 - BUF

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:02 am**

1 - NE
2 - IND
3 - DAL
4 - PIT
5 - GB

28 - MIA
29 - CLE
30 - ATL
31 - STL
32 - BUF

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:54 am**

1 NE
2 Indy
3 Dallas
4 Pit
5 GB

28 Browns
29 Miami
30 Saints
31 Bills
32 Falcons

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:18 am**

1 Patriots

2 Cowboys
3 Colts
4 The Pack
5 Squeelers

28 Beefaloes
29 Doltfins
30 Brownies

just fucking awful
31 Aints (they're back)
32 Falcons

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:06 pm**

MickBastard wrote:I enjoy seeing the Steelers all over the top 5 lists here. Every media outlet and loudmouthed asshole I've read or heard from prior to the regular season had us finishing 3rd in the AFC north (with Cincy first - I know it's early but thats not going to happen) and not even on the map as far as conference-wide greats. They will continue to perform as they face some real challenges (NFC West is a joke).

Yeah, I'm just afraid the the Stillers will not have been 'toughened' up enough come playoffs, assuming they make 'em. You look at their schedule now and it's appraching that of a joke. Not quite there yet, but if some teams continue to flop out, it could be.

Remaining:
SEA- hmmmm
DEN- hmmmm
CIN- If cincy doens't shore up their D, PIT should outscore 'em
BAL- will always be a toss up between these two.
CLE- ho-fucking-hum
NYJ- ho-fucking-hum, Pennington or not
MIA- ho-fucking-hum
CIN
NE- obviously, the toughest of the lot
JAX
STL- Their receiving corps still scares me. If they get going, could be a tough one.
BAL

I was never much of a Willie Parker fan... he doesn't fit the Stiller mold, imo. Someone like Jamal Lewis was more of the Steelers mold. Willie always went down to easily and isn't the power back that the Stillers like to employ late in the game when protecting a lead. He's proving me wrong though. Still not completely sold on 'im though.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:11 pm**

If the Raiders don't win the AFC it'll be the Steelers.

Probably the Steelers.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:58 pm**

In no particular order... A moldy banana peel, a garden hoe, and a potted plant.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:58 pm**

mvscal wrote:Who have the Steelers played?

3 NFL teams, same as the rest of the league.

This ain't college football, strength of schedule doesn't mean shit.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:07 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Who have the Steelers played?
3 NFL teams, same as the rest of the league.

This ain't college football, strength of schedule doesn't mean shit.

For the purposes of these rankings (which granted don't mean squat come playoff time), they do.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:11 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Who have the Steelers played?
3 NFL teams, same as the rest of the league.

This ain't college football, strength of schedule doesn't mean shit.
For the purposes of these rankings (which granted don't mean squat come playoff time), they do.

These rankings don't mean squat now. The only thing that matters is 3-0 and leading the division.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:14 pm**

BSmack wrote:
War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote: 3 NFL teams, same as the rest of the league.

This ain't college football, strength of schedule doesn't mean shit.
For the purposes of these rankings (which granted don't mean squat come playoff time), they do.
These rankings don't mean squat now. The only thing that matters is 3-0 and leading the division.

Jesus, B... is it THAT hard to grasp the simple concept of THIS thread? Apparently so?

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:42 pm**

Ken wrote:Jesus, B... is it THAT hard to grasp the simple concept of THIS thread? Apparently so?

It's as easy as a 120 yard 7 iron Ken.

Who the fuck have the Pats played? 3 teams with a combined 2 wins amongst them? By the "strength of schedule" argument, the Steelers (whose opponents have a total of 3 wins) should be rated ahead of the Pats. The same goes for the Cowboys and their weak ass first 3 opponents.

Thank God and god the NFL doesn't have a BCS.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:31 pm**

Shoalzie wrote:Removing the Saints from the bottom 5...I'm expecting a win tonight.

28. Lions...back where they belong
29. Dolphins
30. Falcons
31. Rams
32. Bills

I'll put off having the Lions in the bottom 5 for another week...the Saints are bad and only going to get worse.

28. Dolphins
29. Falcons
30. Saints
31. Rams
32. Bills

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:40 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Who have the Steelers played?
3 NFL teams, same as the rest of the league.
They've played three shit teams. They haven't proven dick.

Those 3 teams the Steelers played have a better combined record than the 3 teams the Pats and Cowboys played. And they have the same record as the 3 teams the Packers have played. The only unbeaten team with a better record for their opponents are the Colts, whose opponents have won a total of 4 games.

Like I said, strength of schedule is absolutely fucking meaningless.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:39 pm**

BSmack wrote:Who the fuck have the Pats played?

Based on last year's records, only the Bills and Raiders (138 combined wins) have a tougher 2007 schedule than the Pats (137 combined wins.)

T1B

Top 5 and bottom 5