T1B

If you bet New England and gave the 7.5 points, did you win?

You had a 50/50 chance :P

BSmack wrote:If you bet New England and gave the 7.5 points, did you win?

It seems Dins and U's gambling expertise was quite..umm..expendable.

Link to where I said that JAX was a good bet?

If you check ancient history, like from a couplefew days ago, you'll see quite clearly that I didn't like that game at that spread, period. And if it was replayed tomorrow, I wouldn't like it either(JAX got 8.5 here).

I guess I damage pshyches more than I thought, when "I wouldn't touch this one" somehow becomes "JAX is a LOCK" when the underlings see their opening.

Go ahead, point out the post where I said JAX was a good bet....I'll be waiting. Or, you can save the time and let it go, since that never happened.

Ah, I love the sound of Dins melting in the morning. You said it was a bad bet, I said it was my lock.

Guess who won?

Next time, don't try to slurp up UCant's seconds. It doesn't "bode" well for you.

Dinsdale wrote: I guess I damage pshyches more than I thought, when "I wouldn't touch this one" somehow becomes "JAX is a LOCK" when the underlings see their opening.

Where's "Jax is a lock" anywhere in here? Hmm?
Look, when you put your ear to the bong and hear these voices...they're not ours.

Grasp at straws, much?

Where did I say that NE wouldn't win? Where did I say that they wouldn't cover? Where did I say JAX would? Where did I say Pittsburg wouldn't?

A quick check of this empty claim of BODE(usually the first sign you're fucking up), shows that I merely suggested that I didn't like either bet. Read as deep into that as you like, but I didn't like either bet. Dance around patting yourself on the back all you like, but if you have to put words in my mouth...well, do the math.

If there was a rematch next week with the same spreads, I wouldn't like them any better. If YOU bet on them and won, more power to you. I need to see something that catches mt eye before I bet on it. I have no compulsion to bet on every game every week.

BSmack is coming dangerously close to no longer existing in my cyberworld.

Dinsdale wrote:Grasp at straws, much?

Where did I say that NE wouldn't win? Where did I say that they wouldn't cover? Where did I say JAX would? Where did I say Pittsburg wouldn't?

A quick check of this empty claim of BODE(usually the first sign you're fucking up), shows that I merely suggested that I didn't like either bet. Read as deep into that as you like, but I didn't like either bet. Dance around patting yourself on the back all you like, but if you have to put words in my mouth...well, do the math.

If there was a rematch next week with the same spreads, I wouldn't like them any better. If YOU bet on them and won, more power to you. I need to see something that catches mt eye before I bet on it. I have no compulsion to bet on every game every week.

BSmack is coming dangerously close to no longer existing in my cyberworld.

Well break my fucking heart. Did Dins get his wittle feelings hurt posting in the NFL forum?

Just go back to posting about sluts, bongs and how grunge started in Portland and I'm sure we'll both forget this in about 6 months.

I posted 4 questions that put your extremely dubious claims of BODE in their proper perspective -- nonexistant...and you answered exactly zero of them...and I'm the one who's melting.

Getting over must be easy when it's done in a fantasy world.


Buh-bye, BSmack. You're no longer worthy of the time it takes to hit a few keys. Give me a shout when you can form some coherent debate, beyond that of "you're melting, I have BODE." That's about the lowest form of "smack" a person can engage in on these boards, and a primary reason why these boards have gone so far downhill.

Pitt +9.5 at Indy is looking pretty good to me...



edit: BUT, it's still an NFL playoff game, so I'm staying away from it.

Well then MGO, tune in here next week after Indy whoops them*, and you can read a firsthand account of how you had Pittsburg as a LOCK, which you obviously cashed your 401K to cash in on.

Then, you can have the unique pleasure of reading all about your meltdown, and how you freaking GUARANTEED a Pittsburg win like Joe Namath on a bender. At that point, you'll have officially been smacked. Actually, I'm a veteran of the phantom smackjob, so I'll help you out and point out the exact moment of your demise, since it won't be readily apparent to you (or anyone else) when it happens.


* - No, this isn't neccessarily my prediction.

Dinsdale wrote:which you obviously cashed your 401K to cash in on.

Which part of this was unclear?....

edit: BUT, it's still an NFL playoff game, so I'm staying away from it.

Dinsdale wrote:and you can read a firsthand account of how you had Pittsburg as a LOCK

What I can read firsthand is how I used the words "looking pretty good to me". YOU were the one who used the word "lock".

There are no locks in NFL playoff games. Only a fool would try to cash in on anything other than good selection bragging rights.

My reasoning was sound:

UCant Unretires Again wrote:Bruschi will be a shell of his former self, if he plays at all. Dillon is hurting.

Bruschi got a DNP as I expected. Dillon didn't do shit as I expected (17 carries, 40 yards).

Patriots D actually dominated w/out Bruschi as Vrabel and McGinest came up huge. The Patriots had a couple of lucky bounces (had two fumbles that went right into their own hands) and also had a huge turnover.

I was wrong.

Life goes on.

For all of the haytas: research all of the other LOTW I've posted this season and get back to me. This was only the 2nd loser I've posted all year. I also had Texas (check the CFB Forum) and didn't seeing anyone riding my jock over that pick earlier in the week.

Props on picking the Steelers as your lock, dipshit. You'll need another star QB to be lost on the second play from scrimmage for your team to stand a chance this week too. Aim low.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:and you can read a firsthand account of how you had Pittsburg as a LOCK

What I can read firsthand is how I used the words "looking pretty good to me". YOU were the one who used the word "lock".

Sarcasm's a beautiful thing, when people get it.

Oh I get it now.

Hilarious.


BUT...who needs an excuse to smack dinsdale?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:BUT...who needs an excuse to smack dinsdale?

Nobody, ever.

What you do however need, is some game.

Can't believe that whole exchange flew over your head, MaGoo.

Dinsdale wrote:I posted 4 questions that put your extremely dubious claims of BODE in their proper perspective -- nonexistant...and you answered exactly zero of them...and I'm the one who's melting.

Considering that your name wasn't in the title of this thread, or the body of my first post, I'd say you're melting like no other.

Oversenisitve much?

Getting over must be easy when it's done in a fantasy world.

It's even better when the target saunters up, pours the gasoline over themselves and lights the fucking match.

Buh-bye, BSmack. You're no longer worthy of the time it takes to hit a few keys. Give me a shout when you can form some coherent debate, beyond that of "you're melting, I have BODE." That's about the lowest form of "smack" a person can engage in on these boards, and a primary reason why these boards have gone so far downhill.

I'm pretty sure that retirement smack is a few rungs lower. Please, feel free to take your ball and go home. It's not like the football forum hasn't been going for 5 years before you decided to "grace" us with your incoherent ramblings about sports books and crack.

Oh, as expected with your intellect, you've ONCE AGAIN completely misread my statements.

I didn't say anything about retiring (yet another link you can't provide to back your statements), I said that YOU were flirting (even closer now) with disappearing from my internets. I rather enjoy the mentally-functional members' posts here. It's YOU who fucking sucks, not the forum.

Dinsdale wrote:Can't believe that whole exchange flew over your head, MaGoo.

Truth be told, I didn't make it past the first half sentence. So, uh, props to you or whatever, on getting over on me in such a brilliantly comical way. Besides, your sarcasm tinged responses are usually accompanied with a sort of devil's advocate-motive behind them, so I was just playing along.

Dinsdale wrote:Oh, as expected with your intellect, you've ONCE AGAIN completely misread my statements.

Oh yea, there I go mischaracterizing you again.

I didn't say anything about retiring (yet another link you can't provide to back your statements), I said that YOU were flirting (even closer now) with disappearing from my internets.

Did I SAY that you were saying anything about retiring?

Yet again, another link you can't provide.

I rather enjoy the mentally-functional members' posts here. It's YOU who fucking sucks, not the forum.

Did you stomp your feet and take your ball home when you wrote that?

BSmack wrote: Did I SAY that you were saying anything about retiring?

Yet again, another link you can't provide.

Uhm, why yes. Let's take a trip down memory lane, to your last post --

BSmack wrote: I'm pretty sure that retirement smack is a few rungs lower. Please, feel free to take your ball and go home.

See, when someone finds themself in my crosshairs, I tend to use FACT to assault them, rather thasn make things up that I think might suit my needs at the time...it just seems to go smoother that way, and I avoid the inevitable look of retardation that accompanies relying on falsehoods to make my points.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote: Did I SAY that you were saying anything about retiring?

Yet again, another link you can't provide.

Uhm, why yes. Let's take a trip down memory lane, to your last post --

BSmack wrote: I'm pretty sure that retirement smack is a few rungs lower. Please, feel free to take your ball and go home.

See, when someone finds themself in my crosshairs, I tend to use FACT to assault them, rather thasn make things up that I think might suit my needs at the time...it just seems to go smoother that way, and I avoid the inevitable look of retardation that accompanies relying on falsehoods to make my points.

I missed the part where I said "Dinsdale was running retirement smack".

Keep spinning boy.

So, it was just a spur-of-the-moment thing that immediately after my post that you decided, of all times, to drop a nonsequitur on the masses, while replying to my post? Just pointing out that retirement smack is weak, in an NFL thread, even though you never percieved that there was any actual talk of anyone retiring?


Ohhhhkay, cowboy.

Or, was that some sort of deeply-veiled joke, making a reference to "spinning" while making a complete fool of yourself?

Fuck, I got busted while spinning hard...I KNOW!!! I'll accuse the other party of spinning, and surely everyone won't notice, and they'll just take my ever-reliable word for it!


You know, you're such a sad sack of shit, I'll even try to help you out -- the next time you try to "get over" on someone here, you might try making some logical point, supporting it with factual or anecdotal evidence, bringing that evidence to the forefront with creative writing in a clear, concise manner, and letting the results speak for themselves. That's what the people who are good at this messageboard discourse thing universally do. You should try it in your next life. Taking the "I have BODE" shortcut works approximately zero times out of a hundred.

Dinsdale wrote:So, it was just a spur-of-the-moment thing that immediately after my post that you decided, of all times, to drop a nonsequitur on the masses, while replying to my post?

No, actually it was a suggestion to you. God knows retirement smack would be a step up from the pretentious crap you've been running. Though I can certainly understand how your "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude might have misunderstood. Seriously, just come correct and admit that you know nothing about football handicapping or go JHawk if you must.

And since we're both in such a giving mood, here's a suggestion for you. The next time you feel like running football smack, feel free to tell the world how you puked all over yourself at a Screaming Trees show in 1987 instead. Trust me, the "running football smack" thing works for you about never.

BSmack wrote:Though I can certainly understand how your "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude might have misunderstood.

I would think you should, since YOU were the one who misunderstood it.

But, go right ahead and keep accusing other people of "spinning" -- no, really...it's working for you.

And my football knowledge, as compared to yours, is in about the same ratio as my smack ability, compared to yours.

But REALLY...keep up the "you're spinning" smack...really. It's akin to making a commitment to running the ball up the middle -- even if it doesn't work at first, you have to make a solid decision to go with it early, and stick with it, regardless whether there's 9 men in the box or not...really.

Dinsdale wrote: ...and stick with it...

Let's see, B-smack has over 8000 posts, on this board alone. Why, on every board I've ever been on, B_ is always near the top in posts.

Dins, there's no question in my mind that Bri will indeed "stick with it".

And 7999 are probably of the "Rack me, I have BODE I'm in your dome and you're spinning" variety.

War Wagon wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: ...and stick with it...

Let's see, B-smack has over 8000 posts, on this board alone. Why, on every board I've ever been on, B_ is always near the top in posts.

That's because I don't wander around different boards like some posters. Take Smackbat for example. I think I have all of 2 posts there. The Trolls? Maybe 100? It's been a while since I even looked over there. Trolltrain? Are you serious?

Dins, there's no question in my mind that Bri will indeed "stick with it".

But yea, I will ride a hunch if it's a good one. Like Larry Johnson. ;)

Don't take that the wrong way, Bri. I know that you don't post just to spam up threads. Most of your takes are solid. The quantity is irrelevant. You just have more time to waste than most. Far be it from me to ever smack somebody using the "get a life" card just because they are posting 24/7.

Note to Dins: Take a look at the title under Bsmack's nic. That came at my (and 14 other jackasses) fucking expense, and it didn't come cheap. Dude most assuredly knows a thing or two about the NFL.

Not saying that you don't know anything about football, just that you'd be better served to live and fight this battle another day.

Being the top 'winner' in fantasy football is roughly akin to winning the 'bucket game' on Bozo's Circus.

poptart wrote:Being the top 'winner' in fantasy football is roughly akin to winning the 'bucket game' on Bozo's Circus.

And how would you know that, being as how you've never once entered a money game on these here boards?

I luv ya' 'tart, but you can take that shit take and stow it.

Believe I'll use one of Din's lines here.

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, reason to themselves just why it is that they can't.

That, or they're flaming fucking cowards.

What's your story, 'tart?

Since you saw fit to bestow that bit of wisdom on me, I'd like to know.

Then again, if it's similar to the reason you prop the 'duhs, perhaps I don't want to know.

Peyton Manning's a fantasy football dorks wet dream, yet he couldn't get over on Tom Brady in a big game if his family's life depended on it.

That right there pretty well hits it out of the park.


I don't take kindly to tv coverage slanting it's presentation to kowtow to the pube-'stache crowd.

Not a positive for the LONG-term health and vitality of the league.

Fantasy football is a ..... fantasy, a perversion, not reality.

It's a me me me me ME thing, INDIVIDUALIZING the players, as if, in the year 2006 we actually need MORE of that bullshit.

Participation in a league changes the way one views the NFL, the way one cheers, the way one looks at players, teams, loyalties.

Football is the ultimate team game, yet this gay 'game' is grotesquely skewered toward offense and touchdown scorers.

Any 'game' that undervalues the skills of the Joe Greenes, Ronnie Lotts, Lawrence Taylors and Wille Browns of the sport is hopelessly out of touch with what pro football is all about.

Gateway drug.

The Bucket Game on Bozo's Circus was prolly a bit kind on my part.

Enjoy the NFL of the future, fantasy playahs. Me me me me me me me me MEEEEEEH, damn it...!!!!!!

Great legacy you're leavin' for the kiddos.

poptart wrote:Peyton Manning's a fantasy football dorks wet dream, yet he couldn't get over on Tom Brady in a big game if his family's life depended on it.

That right there pretty well hits it out of the park.


I don't take kindly to tv coverage slanting it's presentation to kowtow to the pube-'stache crowd.

Not a positive for the LONG-term health and vitality of the league.

Fantasy football is a ..... fantasy, a perversion, not reality.

It's a me me me me ME thing, INDIVIDUALIZING the players, as if, in the year 2006 we actually need MORE of that bullshit.

Participation in a league changes the way one views the NFL, the way one cheers, the way one looks at players, teams, loyalties.

Football is the ultimate team game, yet this gay 'game' is grotesquely skewered toward offense and touchdown scorers.

Any 'game' that undervalues the skills of the Joe Greenes, Ronnie Lotts, Lawrence Taylors and Wille Browns of the sport is hopelessly out of touch with what pro football is all about.

Gateway drug.

The Bucket Game on Bozo's Circus was prolly a bit kind on my part.

Enjoy the NFL of the future, fantasy playahs. Me me me me me me me me MEEEEEEH, damn it...!!!!!!

Great legacy you're leavin' for the kiddos.

There is a guy on a local sports radio station that has the same attitude towards ff as you do, tart. And it's hillarious when callers bring up the names of offensive and defensive players from around the NFL as well as players from colleges that are not USC and Texas and that buffon is exposed for the fraud that he is.

You might be the exception to the rule when it comes to football knowledge and your lack of interest in ff but in all reality, those who do participate in ff know a shit load more about the NFL and the draft than those who follow their team and their team only.

poptart wrote:Peyton Manning's a fantasy football dorks wet dream, yet he couldn't get over on Tom Brady in a big game if his family's life depended on it.

That right there pretty well hits it out of the park.

No, what hits it out of the park is the realization that almost everybody who drafted Payton Manning this year in their FFL leagues flamed out. Whereas teams starting Brady or say... Carson Palmer went deep into their league playoffs.

I don't take kindly to tv coverage slanting it's presentation to kowtow to the pube-'stache crowd. Not a positive for the LONG-term health and vitality of the league.

Meanwhile franchises like Buffalo, who had blacked out games during their streak of 4 straight AFC Championships now routinely sell out their stadium for a far less competitive team.

Don't let the Raiders games you watch fool you. The rest of the league not named Arizona or Oakland is pretty damn healthy.

Fantasy football is a ..... fantasy, a perversion, not reality. It's a me me me me ME thing, INDIVIDUALIZING the players, as if, in the year 2006 we actually need MORE of that bullshit.

If you actualy competed in an FFL you would know that individual sucess is almost always predicated on team sucess. Ask anybody who started Tiki Barber last weekend. They can tell you chapeter and verse how poorly the Giants as a team played.

Participation in a league changes the way one views the NFL, the way one cheers, the way one looks at players, teams, loyalties. Football is the ultimate team game, yet this gay 'game' is grotesquely skewered toward offense and touchdown scorers.

As is the real life NFL. If anything, the emergence of fantasy football has led to a greater emphasis on defensive players. Or maybe you haven't heard of IDP leagues?

Any 'game' that undervalues the skills of the Joe Greenes, Ronnie Lotts, Lawrence Taylors and Wille Browns of the sport is hopelessly out of touch with what pro football is all about.

Why don't you ask C Mike about the Pats defense? God knows he won't shut up about it. ;)

Gateway drug. The Bucket Game on Bozo's Circus was prolly a bit kind on my part. Enjoy the NFL of the future, fantasy playahs. Me me me me me me me me MEEEEEEH, damn it...!!!!!!

Great legacy you're leavin' for the kiddos.

The kids will be fine. It's the old farts who need to take their meds and deal.

poptart wrote:Peyton Manning's a fantasy football dorks wet dream, yet he couldn't get over on Tom Brady in a big game if his family's life depended on it.

That right there pretty well hits it out of the park.


I don't take kindly to tv coverage slanting it's presentation to kowtow to the pube-'stache crowd.

Not a positive for the LONG-term health and vitality of the league.

Fantasy football is a ..... fantasy, a perversion, not reality.

It's a me me me me ME thing, INDIVIDUALIZING the players, as if, in the year 2006 we actually need MORE of that bullshit.

Participation in a league changes the way one views the NFL, the way one cheers, the way one looks at players, teams, loyalties.

Football is the ultimate team game, yet this gay 'game' is grotesquely skewered toward offense and touchdown scorers.

Any 'game' that undervalues the skills of the Joe Greenes, Ronnie Lotts, Lawrence Taylors and Wille Browns of the sport is hopelessly out of touch with what pro football is all about.

Gateway drug.

The Bucket Game on Bozo's Circus was prolly a bit kind on my part.

Enjoy the NFL of the future, fantasy playahs. Me me me me me me me me MEEEEEEH, damn it...!!!!!!

Great legacy you're leavin' for the kiddos.

Damn tart, all up on your pulpit tonight, aint ya. That was some serious fire and brimstone. Almost.

While I do agree somewhat with what you had to say, and I get where you are coming from, mainly with this .....

Participation in a league changes the way one views the NFL, the way one cheers, the way one looks at players, teams, loyalties.

.... I disagree that its such a bad thing as you would lead us to think.

How is it really that much different from playing in the pickem contest here?

As for this .....

Football is the ultimate team game, yet this gay 'game' is grotesquely skewered toward offense and touchdown scorers.

......you would be wrong. When you, and everyone else move to Yahoo for the pickem contest next season (obligatory pimp job) you can form your own fantasy league, that includes defensive players. Shit...... you can even make the entire league defense only. Yahoo does it all baby. (obligatory pimp job again.)

Ok, enough of that.

.
.
.
.
.

BSmack ....... 8000 fucking posts in less than a year?

Id ask why or how, but seeing that I really dont give a fuck, I will just chuckle, and shake my head.

"Note to Dins: Take a look at the title under Bsmack's nic. That came at my (and 14 other jackasses) fucking expense, and it didn't come cheap. Dude most assuredly knows a thing or two about the NFL."


...not to mention train linking the troops in the "salary cap" league. Bri. might be on the wrong side politically, but I wouldn't question his NFL I.Q.

Its like chooising chocolate or vanilla. You either love FF or you don't. I personally do not care for it. I don't get the attraction. But I dont get NASCAR either. Doesn't mean its better..doesn't mean its not.

Whether you follow fantasy football or not, is not a indicator of whether you know football.


Chocolate.

Mississippi Neck wrote:Chocolate.

You will never have a better post in your life.


RACK!

Yeah, because it's not like I won the last three fantasy leagues (basketball, football, baseball) that were held at SC3, or anything like that...

Matter of fact, I think in the final baseball league, I believed I edged out a certain UCan't on the last game of the last day of the season.

I guess that means, by the super-duper powers of reasoning on display here, that I know more about all 3 sports than any of you.

Sound logic, morons. But then again, the idea originated with WW, so what do you expect?