Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[dataz722]

"A good defensive game is still scoring 2 touchdowns?" Best defense in the NFL last year was the Jets. They gave up over 2 touchdowns a game (14.8 points). So, yeah, a good defensive team (last year's best) gives up over 2 touchdowns a game. It does make sense. The NFL writes rules specifically to eliminate the possibility of low-scoring games. Giving up ONLY two a game shows remarkable defensive prowess.

Yes, they gave up an AVERAGE of 14.8 points. In order to average that, you will need have quite a few games where you held the oppent to less than 2 touchdowns. They also only allowed 19 touchdowns last year which is an average of 1.19 per game.

I pay far more attention than you give me credit for. I watch a game for fundamentals. Blocking, running, and passing sure. But also tackling, taking good angles, shedding blocks, forcing the ball where it doesn't want to go. There is a BIG difference between the defense making plays and the offense being lackluster. If you watched carefully, you would have seen that on Monday night. The O line knows the snap count. They should get off the ball first. If the D line beats the O line off the ball, it's a great play. If the entire D line routinely beats the O line off the ball, it says way more about the O line than the D because that just doesn't happen on a regular basis for an O line that is paying attention.

I actually watched this game at a bar so I wasn't able to devote that much attention to what the lines were doing. I normally do, but just didn't this game. So, I can't really comment on that.

"
The running: I don't need the QB to take off like a mad man every time the ball goes to him. But in that game, none of the featured RB (Greene, LT, McGehee, Rice) showed any patience in following blocks. Greene's fumble highlighted this. He was paying so little attention to his blockers that he ran into one and coughed up the ball. The defense hit the line well, but did nothing to cause that fumble.
it.

Well I will agree with greene and a right ass cheeck causing a fumble. He wasn't paying much attention to the block but the blocker also got pushed back into him from the D line. LT and Rice were both waiting for something to develop, a blocker to follow or a hole to open up, but you can only wait so long before you just have to do something.

"
And the 85 bears... They were also awesome. However, they played in an era where the rules weren't written to favor the offense. AND in an era where offenses weren't all that complex. If you were physically imposing defense, you would win because an offense couldn't out-scheme power. These days, that type of defense would get smoked.

I can't really disagree with that much at all.

 

[Airborneguy]

...and changing their names to some bastardized Spanish version of their jersey number. That crap is what is wrong with the NFL.

LOL... I'm wearing his jersey right now!

 

[cimirie]

Yes, they gave up an AVERAGE of 14.8 points. In order to average that, you will need have quite a few games where you held the oppent to less than 2 touchdowns. They also only allowed 19 touchdowns last year which is an average of 1.19 per game.

You're absolutely right about my 2 touchdowns per game comment. I wasn't looking at TDs per se, only the total points scored in a game. I saw 14.8 and my mind went to "2 touchdowns." My bad.

Even so, I don't think anybody would question the Jets' prowess last year on defense. In games in the NFL last season, the average team scored 21.5 points per game. Any time a defense holds the other team to 7 points less than the league average is a good defensive game in my opinion.

Back to my original statement, though. I can analyze the product I saw on the field Monday night. I can fundamentally know what happened and appreciate what went into it. I can know that technically, the product on the field on Sundays is superior to the product on Saturdays. But what college football fans see on Saturdays that just isn't usually there on Sundays is the fun. The unpredictable. The tension. The undisciplined flair. And yes, the increased scoring.

 

[the_bird]

The unpredictable? When teams load up on creampuffs? Seems like especially early on, you get massively lopsided scores (worse than anything in the NFL), which is no fun for ANYONE to watch unless they're an alum of the winning squad.

You know what pisses me off? When teams rack up the score because margin of victory is part of the BCS ranking system. Win's a ****ing win. Some are pretty, some are ugly. Win 'em all, and there shouldn't be any doubt who's best.

Heisman Trophy winners often aren't even NFL prospects because they jack up their yards and TDs by beating up on ****ty teams.

How come no one has mentioned the biggest problem with college football - the lack of a playoff system? ****ing determining the best team in the country based on polls and computer models that nobody really understands, other than to know that it's better if in week one, you had beat up the Smith College JV squad by 100 points instead of 75.

No one bitches after the season's over who the NFL's real champion was. No one bitches that the Rams were the better team all season in 2001, or that Tennessee was "the real champions" in 2000. The Super Bowl is about as definitive an ending to the football season as there is.

 

[Sea]

What the ****'s up with all this talk about the SEC and Pac-10 and all that college football BS? College football - is that the game where they just PRETEND that the players aren't all getting paid? College football is just like the NFL, only without 1099s being issued at year-end.

I don't know, you might want to ask Reggie Bush about this one.

Back to my original statement, though. I can analyze the product I saw on the field Monday night. I can fundamentally know what happened and appreciate what went into it. I can know that technically, the product on the field on Sundays is superior to the product on Saturdays. But what college football fans see on Saturdays that just isn't usually there on Sundays is the fun. The unpredictable. The tension. The undisciplined flair. And yes, the increased scoring.

This IS a good point. I too find college more exciting, which I think is in part due to the fact that there's more risk taking because there's less money to be lost when you lose.

How come no one has mentioned the biggest problem with college football - the lack of a playoff system? ****ing determining the best team in the country based on polls and computer models that nobody really understands, other than to know that it's better if in week one, you had beat up the Smith College JV squad by 100 points instead of 75.

Amen!

 

[dataz722]

You're absolutely right about my 2 touchdowns per game comment. I wasn't looking at TDs per se, only the total points scored in a game. I saw 14.8 and my mind went to "2 touchdowns." My bad.

Even so, I don't think anybody would question the Jets' prowess last year on defense. In games in the NFL last season, the average team scored 21.5 points per game. Any time a defense holds the other team to 7 points less than the league average is a good defensive game in my opinion.

Back to my original statement, though. I can analyze the product I saw on the field Monday night. I can fundamentally know what happened and appreciate what went into it. I can know that technically, the product on the field on Sundays is superior to the product on Saturdays. But what college football fans see on Saturdays that just isn't usually there on Sundays is the fun. The unpredictable. The tension. The undisciplined flair. And yes, the increased scoring.

Unpredictable? Yeah, there might be a few upsets here and there but that isn't very common? I have never heard the sayings "any given saturday".

Undisciplined flair? Could you have picked a bigger oxymoron. Why in the hell would I want to watch undisciplined football. If I wanted that I would go watch peewee league every sat morning.

The unpredictable? When teams load up on creampuffs? Seems like especially early on, you get massively lopsided scores (worse than anything in the NFL), which is no fun for ANYONE to watch unless they're an alum of the winning squad.

You know what pisses me off? When teams rack up the score because margin of victory is part of the BCS ranking system. Win's a ****ing win. Some are pretty, some are ugly. Win 'em all, and there shouldn't be any doubt who's best.

Heisman Trophy winners often aren't even NFL prospects because they jack up their yards and TDs by beating up on ****ty teams.

How come no one has mentioned the biggest problem with college football - the lack of a playoff system? ****ing determining the best team in the country based on polls and computer models that nobody really understands, other than to know that it's better if in week one, you had beat up the Smith College JV squad by 100 points instead of 75.

No one bitches after the season's over who the NFL's real champion was. No one bitches that the Rams were the better team all season in 2001, or that Tennessee was "the real champions" in 2000. The Super Bowl is about as definitive an ending to the football season as there is.

Couldn't agree more about every bit of that.

 

[dataz722]

This IS a good point. I too find college more exciting, which I think is in part due to the fact that there's more risk taking because there's less money to be lost when you lose.

College football may be more about money than the NFL. Do you know why those scrub teams play to elite every year just to get their ass kicked? Why there will NEVER be a playoff system in college football? Why even the small uknown bowl games are so important? Why a team will run up a score to get into any bowl?

MONEY!!!!!

 

[Sea]

College football may be more about money than the NFL. Do you know why those scrub teams play to elite every year just to get their ass kicked? Why there will NEVER be a playoff system in college football? Why even the small uknown bowl games are so important? Why a team will run up a score to get into any bowl?

MONEY!!!!!

Oh I know there's a crapload of $ to made off college football. But if you think it doesn't pale in comparison to the NFL, I'd have to disagree.

 

[the_bird]

I wish those ****ers at the NCAA would stop pretending that college athletics was a charitable endeavor.

Pay the athletes a modest stipend. ****, ****ing teaching assistants can earn a salary, why can't your placekicker? Share the ****ing wealth with the kids who are sacrificing each week. Give them enough of a stipend so you don't have as many of the Reggie Bush-type situations. You'll always have boosters trying to get players to come to their squad for *more* money, but you'll eliminate a good chunk of the issue if you just give the kids a fair percentage of what the schools earn.

Maybe the ****ing UAW should unionize the football players at some major team; ****, they've already unionized the teaching assistants at my wife's school...

But, stop pretending that college football is somehow cleaner or more pure than the NFL. At least in the NFL, if Randy Moss wants to get paid, he's going to be honest about it and tell you. I'd rather hear that than have the best players in the NCAA all getting paid under the table (and then wondering why certain squads are perennially so much better than everyone else).

And, give us a clear playoff system, so there's a REAL ****ing champion. **** the BCS, **** it up its stupid ass.

 

[dataz722]

Oh I know there's a crapload of $ to made off college football. But if you think it doesn't pale in comparison to the NFL, I'd have to disagree.

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL's profit wasn't about the same if not less than college per year.

 

[dataz722]

I wish those ****ers at the NCAA would stop pretending that college athletics was a charitable endeavor.

Pay the athletes a modest stipend. ****, ****ing teaching assistants can earn a salary, why can't your placekicker? Share the ****ing wealth with the kids who are sacrificing each week. Give them enough of a stipend so you don't have as many of the Reggie Bush-type situations. You'll always have boosters trying to get players to come to their squad for *more* money, but you'll eliminate a good chunk of the issue if you just give the kids a fair percentage of what the schools earn.

Maybe the ****ing UAW should unionize the football players at some major team; ****, they've already unionized the teaching assistants at my wife's school...

But, stop pretending that college football is somehow cleaner or more pure than the NFL. At least in the NFL, if Randy Moss wants to get paid, he's going to be honest about it and tell you. I'd rather hear that than have the best players in the NCAA all getting paid under the table (and then wondering why certain squads are perennially so much better than everyone else).

And, give us a clear playoff system, so there's a REAL ****ing champion. **** the BCS, **** it up its stupid ass.

 

[Sea]

I wish those ****ers at the NCAA would stop pretending that college athletics was a charitable endeavor.

Pay the athletes a modest stipend. ****, ****ing teaching assistants can earn a salary, why can't your placekicker? Share the ****ing wealth with the kids who are sacrificing each week. Give them enough of a stipend so you don't have as many of the Reggie Bush-type situations. You'll always have boosters trying to get players to come to their squad for *more* money, but you'll eliminate a good chunk of the issue if you just give the kids a fair percentage of what the schools earn.

Maybe the ****ing UAW should unionize the football players at some major team; ****, they've already unionized the teaching assistants at my wife's school...

But, stop pretending that college football is somehow cleaner or more pure than the NFL. At least in the NFL, if Randy Moss wants to get paid, he's going to be honest about it and tell you. I'd rather hear that than have the best players in the NCAA all getting paid under the table (and then wondering why certain squads are perennially so much better than everyone else).

And, give us a clear playoff system, so there's a REAL ****ing champion. **** the BCS, **** it up its stupid ass.

Well said! Though not enough asterisk's........

 

[Sea]

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL's profit wasn't about the same if not less than college per year.

You could be right, what do I know. I'd like to see the numbers though. To be fair though you would have to compare the top 32 teams in college to the NFL.

You have to admit though that there's more risk taking in college ball, which is why I personally find it more enjoyable to watch. I wonder why this is, if not that there's less to lose when you fail?

 

[the_bird]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

 

[dataz722]

You could be right, what do I know. I'd like to see the numbers though. To be fair though you would have to compare the top 32 teams in college to the NFL.

You have to admit though that there's more risk taking in college ball, which is why I personally find it more enjoyable to watch. I wonder why this is, if not that there's less to lose when you fail?

I really have no idea how much either make. I was just saying it wouldn't surprise me. I was also taking into considering all D1 schools and not having to pay the players, or at least the book keeping not showing it.


I think that the risk taking is for the same reason you see it a lot in High school ball. They don't trust the defense or special teams and would rather just take the chance. That and the other defense is usually fairly weak, hence the high scoring.

 

[Sea]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

I honestly don't know how you would quantify it, but certainly all the things you listed would apply, with trick plays at the top of the list. I don't really watch enough college football to say that it's the quantity of teams which influences my perception of a less cautious style of play. Perhaps it may be that my favorite teams are a bit unconventional which influences my viewpoint on this, but it is what I see.

 

[joel4482]

At least you are from the New England area. We have stupid fans over here on the west coast that are fans of the patriots just because they have been good in the past. Go Seahawks!

 

[the_bird]

The 'Hawks DID get jobbed in the Super Bowl a few years back, but still... no one questions whether Pittsburgh was the Champion that year. Same as no one (including myself) claims that the 2007 Pats were really the best team in football, not the Giants.

Playoff systems and REAL title games make a huge difference.

 

[joel4482]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

That is the beauty of the NCAA, "teams" like Boise state can beat more "talented" schools because the are a better "team" rather than more "talented individuals"

 

[the_bird]

Meh. Happens in the NFL all the time. Talent level of the 2001 Pats was <<<<<<<<<<<<<< that of the Rams. Was the Trent Dilfer-led Baltimore team more talented than the Giant team they beat? Gets a little fuzzy in terms of how you want to define "talent," but they weren't exactly exceptional at the skill positions (at least on offense).

Not sure there's ANY football team, at ANY level above high school, where any one individual is more important than the collective group.

Or hell, let's talk about a guy like Tim Tebow, was was probably more single-handedly responsible for his "team's" success than any other last year. Think he's going to be as critical a cog to the Broncos success in the future?

If anything, I'd say the impact of one dominant individual is felt much more at the collegiate level than in the NFL. One dominant player gets you squat in the NFL, any team's defense can take away any single player if they choose.

College football being more of a "team" sport is just more NCAA propaganda.

Besides, people hate on NFL divas... you really think guys like Dez Bryant were perfect "team guys" until they hit the NFL?

 

[cimirie]

The 'Hawks DID get jobbed in the Super Bowl a few years back, but still... no one questions whether Pittsburgh was the Champion that year. Same as no one (including myself) claims that the 2007 Pats were really the best team in football, not the Giants.

Playoff systems and REAL title games make a huge difference.

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

 

[the_bird]

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

Still. My point is... that's the team we remember. That's what we all have decidedly, collectively, really matters. Pats went 18-0; who cares, after the helmet catch? 'Hawks might have been able to beat the Steelers with better officiating; no one really cares (excepting in both cases some hardcore fans).

NFL football is definitive. Black and white. If you finish the playoffs without losing any games, you're the best team in the league.

College football, no one really trusts who the "champions" are because of how much stuff goes on under the surface, that no one understands, that determines who gets to play for the title of being "best."

You know what really sticks in my craw, philosophically? How many teams are out there - Division I teams, mind you - that literally have a 0.0000000000000000000% chance of ever being considered NCAA Champions because they play in a division that's not going to be considered for the title game? The Detroit Lions or St Louis Rams or Tampa Bay Bucs could win the Super Bowl this year, they probably won't but if something *magical* happens, they start winning games, they *could*, in theory, make the playoffs, win some games, and get themselves a ring and a parade.

It annoys me that even though the odds of a team from a "lesser" conference not ever likely BEING the best team in college football, the way the rules are set up it could never, ever, ever possibly happen. There can never be a Hickory High in NCAA football, like there can be in college basketball.

 

[dataz722]

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

But that is still a better option. Hell, the best option. Unless you were to do a multi-game series you really can't get any more definitive, but even that wouldn't be perfect. Of course that isn't really possible with football. I can't really think of any better idea.

 

[the_bird]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

 

[dataz722]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

I like the idea of keeping the bowls but use some of them as the first round of the playoffs. That solves some of the problem with the money factor. Just leave the bigger bowls for the later rounds. Yes, the first round would need to be voted in but however many teams is better than just 2.

 

[the_bird]

Exactly what I've thought. Bowl season always begins at Christmas, hits its crescendo at New Years, and last year's "Championship" bowl was January 7th. That's three weekends worth of bowls already. The only difference is that you'd have some teams playing in multiple bowls... so you'd have to give the players some playoff money.

 

[cimirie]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

I agree that the consensus of top 10 teams (or 8 in your example) is usually much more unanimous than top 2. I wouldn't mind that idea at all. You'd still need polls and computers to get to the top teams, which I'm OK with (since Part of the college FB fun is the lobbying. I just don't think lobbying should decide the only 2 that can play for the NC).

 

[dataz722]

I agree that the consensus of top 10 teams (or 8 in your example) is usually much more unanimous than top 2. I wouldn't mind that idea at all. You'd still need polls and computers to get to the top teams, which I'm OK with (since Part of the college FB fun is the lobbying. I just don't think lobbying should decide the only 2 that can play for the NC).

The worst part of it all though is that no matter how many people/players/coaches/media want it, it will never happen.

 

[madbaldman]

As far as SEC dominance... I wholeheartedly disagree. What you actually have had is one or two very talented teams from the SEC, and the rest are good to bad - just like you see in every conference. (USC/Ore/Cal Pac10, OSU/PSU Big10, UT/OKla Big12). The bowl record for the SEC is far from dominating. Yes the SEC has produced the strongest team in the country the past few years. But a great team doesn't make a conference "magically" superior - as most pollsters and too many fans seem to believe.

I don't believe the SEC gets any special attention from the pollsters in the last couple years. They were "magical" at one time when the SEC consistently had 3-4 teams in the top ten that were contenders to the NC. Last couple years things have slipped (LSU, UT, AU, UGA) and now I don't think the SEC gets any special consideration as far as strength of schedule like they used to get a few years ago. Even so, I don't think you can point to any conference as being stronger than the SEC, nor any team stronger than Bama.

 

[motobrewer]

great weekend.

pack dominated, queens got beat. manning v manning wasn't all that entertaining.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

RE: the NCAA BCS; IMO one of the fundamental 'essences' of sport is 'who wins the game', not who is a better team on paper. "That's why they play the game." as they say. The NCAA eliminates one of the most basic essences of sport. It's a non-championship imo.

Proponents like to say "but every regular season game matters, it's like a season-long playoff." I contend that NONE of the regular season games matter (since it's a non-championship anyway) and certainly don't for those teams that could go undefeated and never get a sniff of a National Championship game.

 

[Dwain]

Jesus... it's like Christmas morning...


Jets sh!tspanked the Pats and then...
Giants LOST
Washington LOST
Vikings LOST

I'll take that for Week 2 results!!!

However, on the sh!tspanked side,
How 'bout 'dem Cowboys!

 

[the_bird]

RE: the NCAA BCS; IMO one of the fundamental 'essences' of sport is 'who wins the game', not who is a better team on paper. "That's why they play the game." as they say. The NCAA eliminates one of the most basic essences of sport. It's a non-championship imo.

Proponents like to say "but every regular season game matters, it's like a season-long playoff." I contend that NONE of the regular season games matter (since it's a non-championship anyway) and certainly don't for those teams that could go undefeated and never get a sniff of a National Championship game.

Exactly! Football shouldn't be a popularity sport; we're trying to determine the single best team, not elect a homecoming king. The BCS is basically the equivalent of judging in figure skating; some technical measures considered, but ultimately mostly subjective.

The solution is SO simple (re-purposing existing bowls into a three-round, eight-team playoffs). I can't even see how the total dollars earned would be any different - but of course, it would be different teams and conferences getting those dollars.

 

[olllllo]

Yea, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be spending my time on college football bowl restructuring too.

 

[the_bird]

What, I should be in panic mode over a 1-1 start? Where the **** you been, ollllllllllllllllllllo, we've been talking about this for a good week.

 

[olllllo]

New England Patriots <---- going to absolutely freakin own everyone this year and if you don't think that's the case... you're stupid.

There.... now you know. :rockin:

Just bringing this convo back to its roots, boyo.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Thought it was funny that Kubiak (formerly under Shanahan) pulled the 'timeout just as ball is snapped for an OT field-goal' on Shanahan since it was Shanahan who (most notoriusly) started the obligatory 'timeout just as ball is snapped for an OT field-goal'.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Sonofa.....

 

[humann_brewing]

so part of me has to root for SF tonight because they are a local but they are gonna get spanked tonight.

 

[motobrewer]

Yea, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be spending my time on college football bowl restructuring too.

Just bringing this convo back to its roots, boyo.

love. it.