EPTNFL Season 2010 - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
KOFgokuon
United States14900 Posts
| ||
GTR
51515 Posts
| ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14900 Posts
good god | ||
|
KingV
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 13 2010 07:32 KingV wrote: Michael Vick is gonna be the starter. Hes the better athlete and has probably the same arm as Kolb And Kolb is really bad. Not that Vick isn't, but Kolb is really bad. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
tonight
United States11130 Posts
| ||
|
LuciD`
United States81 Posts
On September 13 2010 07:01 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Yeah, it wasn't subjective at all. He was in the act of falling, that is indisputable. The rule is pretty clear. It's actually the lack of subjectivity in the rules that caused this to happen. And I really have to question whether or not you watch football to call a clear cut Vikings division win after seeing them perform on Thursday, and seeing GB playing fairly well against the Eagles today. The Vikings are without their #1 WR for at least half of the season, their secondary is in complete disarray, AP will probably still fumble, Favre will absolutely throw picks... What is it in that team that says "they take the division easily," other than a disgusting amount of bias for the Vikings or against the Packers. The Bears picks are hopeful thinking, really, although save for some turnovers, their offense looked efficient today. Plus, preseason, it's hard to know exactly what to think of the Bears. Are they the team that we saw in the last four weeks of '09 that beat the might Vikings, or are they the team we saw the first twelve weeks? How will the line hold up? How will their players adjust to Mike Martz's schemes? How will Forte/Taylor do this year? How will Cutler perform? Will he rule the league for INT's again? If the answer to those questions went something like, last four weeks, great, wonderfully, excellently, awesome, and no, then they could easily take the division. I wanted more games, then last year everyone seemed to start getting hurt at an accelerated pace, and it's continuing into this year. It'd be nice for the fans and revenue, but I'm afraid that some players would lose their careers in those two games. It's just not worth it. Green Bay is looking better. Vikings didn't look phenomenal but they held arguably the best offense in the league to 14 points despite the weak secondary. It's pretty much the same weak secondary we watched the last two years from them. Favre spent most of the game trying to force the ball to Harvin and Shiancoe. Adrian Peterson also will probably get more touches. He looked pretty good when he had the ball. But 19 carries isn't enough for a back like him. It'll probably be a battle between GB and MN but the analysts basically wrote of MN and that's not right, even after thursday. I have a feeling it'll turn out like last year where the first 2-3 games are shaky, but that's what happens when your team leader skips out on camp and you aren't on the same page with your receivers. Especially with Sidney out he needs to trust Berrian and Camarillo more. There is nothing we saw on Thursday that didn't remind me of week 1 last year against the Browns. The only difference is we won because we were playing the Browns and not the Super Bowl Champs. Missing Cook, Griffin and Rice will really hurt but I think we'll rally from it. After watching the replay of CJs catch I agree with what you said. But my god that rule sucks for that particular catch. It looked so clean. I should have put a disclaimer that I am a Vikings homer I suppose. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14900 Posts
| ||
|
KingV
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
| ||
|
GTR
51515 Posts
| ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
| ||
|
GTR
51515 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
On September 13 2010 08:33 Southlight wrote: Because Andy Reid is the head coach. I recently saw a top coach list that had him in the top 5 and laughed for a long time. He knows how to game plan very well on offense, but hasn't the slightest fuckin clue how to manage the clock or adapt if his first option went to shit. What the fuck happened in Ninerland, I had to leave and smith was just off of 6 of 7 on a nice drive when I bounced... | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 13 2010 08:23 LuciD` wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2010 07:01 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Yeah, it wasn't subjective at all. He was in the act of falling, that is indisputable. The rule is pretty clear. It's actually the lack of subjectivity in the rules that caused this to happen. And I really have to question whether or not you watch football to call a clear cut Vikings division win after seeing them perform on Thursday, and seeing GB playing fairly well against the Eagles today. The Vikings are without their #1 WR for at least half of the season, their secondary is in complete disarray, AP will probably still fumble, Favre will absolutely throw picks... What is it in that team that says "they take the division easily," other than a disgusting amount of bias for the Vikings or against the Packers. The Bears picks are hopeful thinking, really, although save for some turnovers, their offense looked efficient today. Plus, preseason, it's hard to know exactly what to think of the Bears. Are they the team that we saw in the last four weeks of '09 that beat the might Vikings, or are they the team we saw the first twelve weeks? How will the line hold up? How will their players adjust to Mike Martz's schemes? How will Forte/Taylor do this year? How will Cutler perform? Will he rule the league for INT's again? If the answer to those questions went something like, last four weeks, great, wonderfully, excellently, awesome, and no, then they could easily take the division. I wanted more games, then last year everyone seemed to start getting hurt at an accelerated pace, and it's continuing into this year. It'd be nice for the fans and revenue, but I'm afraid that some players would lose their careers in those two games. It's just not worth it. Green Bay is looking better. Vikings didn't look phenomenal but they held arguably the best offense in the league to 14 points despite the weak secondary. It's pretty much the same weak secondary we watched the last two years from them. Favre spent most of the game trying to force the ball to Harvin and Shiancoe. Adrian Peterson also will probably get more touches. He looked pretty good when he had the ball. But 19 carries isn't enough for a back like him. It'll probably be a battle between GB and MN but the analysts basically wrote of MN and that's not right, even after thursday. I have a feeling it'll turn out like last year where the first 2-3 games are shaky, but that's what happens when your team leader skips out on camp and you aren't on the same page with your receivers. Especially with Sidney out he needs to trust Berrian and Camarillo more. There is nothing we saw on Thursday that didn't remind me of week 1 last year against the Browns. The only difference is we won because we were playing the Browns and not the Super Bowl Champs. Missing Cook, Griffin and Rice will really hurt but I think we'll rally from it. After watching the replay of CJs catch I agree with what you said. But my god that rule sucks for that particular catch. It looked so clean. I should have put a disclaimer that I am a Vikings homer I suppose. Well, at least now we know not to trash you for "Vikings are awesome" rants. Despite being a Bears fan, I hope you're right about them pulling around, because I can't have QB play like that all season. Fantasy football has taken me out of being a fan of a team. I'm just a fan of certain players performing well now. I think I'm quitting after this year; it's really wrecked my enjoyment of the game. I was so pissed when Forte went yard on that long TD pass, and even more so when he got the second... that's not right. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
| ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
On September 13 2010 05:51 Musoeun wrote: I'm kind of wondering what would have happened if we'd have let Shaun Hill open it up earlier. I know his stat-line was bad, and I know Chicago went into prevent on that last drive, but they were utterly ineffective stopping anything. The 2nd half Detroit's run game was garbage, and it's got to be at least partly because we weren't throwing pretty much at all. Yeah, Hill's not good, but at least trying would have been nice. The Bears defense was dominant the entire game, even when Stafford was still in the game. That said, the Bears lost that game, what a stupid technicality. Also, what the hell was lovie thinking not kicking that field goal on 4th & goal? The Lions had maybe 20 yards total in the 2nd half up until that point. What an awful game to watch. | ||
| ||
