Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[motobrewer]

opening 2nd half, down 16-7, 3rd and 1, deep in 49er territory - options:

1. quick slant? nah...
2. benson can pick up 1, can't he? nah...
3. a-rod roll out? eh, how bout:

4. hail mary to a fully double covered jordy nelson? heck yeah! because surely, nobody's EVER seen that before from the packers!! we'll catch them completely by surprise!

mccarthy you are a f*cking idiot.

 

[Cape Brewing]

I think you're being a little harsh on McCarthy Moto. YES, obviously it was a terrible call by a not-so-good head coach... sure... that's a given... but again, the Packers simply aren't that good. I don't know what your expectations were that you're getting so fired up. I mean, you CAN'T possibly be sitting there thinking, "MAN, they blew it!! They're so good and they blew it!"

Cause you would be way way off. I'm talkin' REALLY off base.

They're a nice little 8-8 team.... maybe 7-9... hey... maybe they get a ton of lucky breaks and go 9-7. Ya never know. Either way, you should just sit back and enjoy watching the Pats.

 

[motobrewer]

how many superbowls have the pats won this decade?

wait, you're from boston, you can't do math!

 

[TheDudeLebowski]

how many superbowls have the pats won this decade?

wait, you're from boston, you can't do math!

Wisconsin is #16. How do you like them apples?

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...ools/top-science-schools/mathematics-rankings

 

[motobrewer]

huh?

you learned to count in college? that proves my point, actually...

 

[the_bird]

As they say around here, "My boy's wicked smaht."

 

[TheDudeLebowski]

huh?

you learned to count in college? that proves my point, actually...

..and we're ranked higher than you. We do know that 34 (Pats) is higher than 22 (GB), 13(Tenn) is less than 30 (SF) and one (Pats) is higher than the Schneid (GB).

 

[McBrewskie]

Ravens looked nasty. If they're putting up points and able to throw the ball that's huge considering the Pats defensive backfield is made of Swiss cheese. Harbowl this year? Maybe so.

Also, I'd love to see the Pats and the Pack play right now, with those offenses and no defenses at all it'd be 52-48 by the half.

 

[day_trippr]

Mmmm hmmmm. I saw the Pats put on a clinic on both sides of the ball, and the Pack suck eggs.

If the Pats played the Pack today, you'd be begging for the Mercy Rule before the halftime gun...

Cheers!

 

[McBrewskie]

Mmmm hmmmm. I saw the Pats put on a clinic on both sides of the ball, and the Pack suck eggs.

If the Pats played the Pack today, you'd be begging for the Mercy Rule before the halftime gun...

Cheers!

Wouldn't bother me. **** both those sissy twinkle toe fancy pants teams.

 

[user 574]

I'm not going to fault the GB offense a bit. In the end, from a QB/offensive perspective Discount Double Check still got 303 yrs, 2 TDs and 1 pick (zero run game) against the BEST defense in the NFL. GB defense definitely sucked but not like that wasn't known from last year. May get better later, may not.

But I still agree that w/o a big time D "usually" you won't win it all. Giants have proven that. And I don't think digging up zombie Reggie White is an option.

And Bears, Pats - you haven't been tested for sh't yet.

 

[the_bird]

I'm not going to fault the GB offense a bit. In the end, from a QB/offensive perspective Discount Double Check still got 303 yrs, 2 TDs and 1 pick (zero run game) against the BEST defense in the NFL. GB defense definitely sucked but not like that wasn't known from last year. May get better later, may not.

But I still agree that w/o a big time D "usually" you won't win it all. Giants have proven that. And I don't think digging up zombie Reggie White is an option.

And Bears, Pats - you haven't been tested for sh't yet.

Thing is, last year the Pats and the Packs were essentially the same; great passing game, mediocre rushing game, horrid defense. This year, the Pats seem to be getting a lot better in our two areas of weakness - and yeah, it's only one game, but you've been able to see signs of improvement all summer.

So, in a way I feel better about this year's squad than I did last year, even when we were going like 16-3 for the whole year. We *should* be much better balanced, both offence/defense and within the offense.

 

[user 574]

Oh yeah, and I am 60/40 split that Packers lose tomorrow against the Bears at "home". Just to record it before the sh't storm comes Friday. I'm already expecting the loss and almost think they need it for any chance this year.

 

[user 574]

Bird, for GB I think there is a cockiness BS that has to get the F*ck beat out of them from last year & SB hangover. So I approve of your NE hungry message.

 

[the_bird]

Yeah, I'm really interested in tomorrow night's game... there's been something really off about the Pack for a little while. Think it started going into last year's playoffs. Green Bay's a better team (I *think*) than they've showed in the last two games that have really counted. Almost... almost like when the Pats lost to the Giants in '07, it was almost like they started believing the hype a little too much.

 

[bluemoose]

Oh yeah, and I am 60/40 split that Packers lose tomorrow against the Bears at "home". Just to record it before the sh't storm comes Friday. I'm already expecting the loss and almost think they need it for any chance this year.

Lllaaaame! Yeah, the best thing for our team to win is losing the first two games. Bwaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaa!

Boy, just think how good you'll be if you can just lose the first four! Bwaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaa!

 

[McBrewskie]

Lllaaaame! Yeah, the best thing for our team to win is losing the first two games. Bwaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaa!

Boy, just think how good you'll be if you can just lose the first four! Bwaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaa!

Agree with this. Unless you suck and want a higher pick the best thing is never for your team to lose.

 

[bluemoose]

Agree with this. Unless you suck and want a higher pick the best thing is never for your team to lose.

You should know. Look how all that losing worked for the 9ers last decade!

 

[j1laskey]

And Bears, Pats - you haven't been tested for sh't yet.

...and the Bears won't be tested this week either.

 

[the_bird]

Bird, for GB I think there is a cockiness BS that has to get the F*ck beat out of them from last year & SB hangover. So I approve of your NE hungry message.

NFL Network was showing an interview with Rodgers over the summer. The question was posed; "Do you need to have a better running game?", and Rodgers' answer was "Why?" There was an arrogance to the answer, particularly given that in their last game the Giants had beaten the snot out of them. It wasn't what you would expect to hear - it wasn't the answer that you're hear out of either Manning, or out of Brady, or really out of any other QB.

Green Bay has not shown any commitment to the running game, and I really believe that's a problem. When New England has struggled, it's because they have lost the physical battle on the line of scrimmage. A big part of that is having a running game that has to be respected and that can wear down the defensive line. That's why I'm so excited about Steven Ridley, and *really* wondering what's going to happen to Green Bay this season. It's a passing league, but you still need to be able to run the ball and control the line.

 

[bluemoose]

Green Bay has not shown any commitment to the running game, and I really believe that's a problem. When New England has struggled, it's because they have lost the physical battle on the line of scrimmage. A big part of that is having a running game that has to be respected and that can wear down the defensive line. That's why I'm so excited about Steven Ridley, and *really* wondering what's going to happen to Green Bay this season. It's a passing league, but you still need to be able to run the ball and control the line.

Not to mention run blocking is much easier for the O-line than pass blocking, and it opens so many additional options to the offense. Pat's O-line will be the biggest beneficiary of Stevan Ridley, if he can continue to produce.

 

[motobrewer]

NFL Network was showing an interview with Rodgers over the summer. The question was posed; "Do you need to have a better running game?", and Rodgers' answer was "Why?" There was an arrogance to the answer, particularly given that in their last game the Giants had beaten the snot out of them. It wasn't what you would expect to hear - it wasn't the answer that you're hear out of either Manning, or out of Brady, or really out of any other QB.

Green Bay has not shown any commitment to the running game, and I really believe that's a problem. When New England has struggled, it's because they have lost the physical battle on the line of scrimmage. A big part of that is having a running game that has to be respected and that can wear down the defensive line. That's why I'm so excited about Steven Ridley, and *really* wondering what's going to happen to Green Bay this season. It's a passing league, but you still need to be able to run the ball and control the line.

meh. you should be able to win games with 22 points.

our defense just ba-lows. i think that's what aaron was trying to convey.

"why? we put up 30ppg and the defense can't keep us in it."

 

[the_bird]

Yeah, but even when you're scoring a lot of points, you're usually doing it more quickly and putting your own D out there a lot longer. Plus, it's always good to have a power running game for those games when there's a foot of snow on the ground; Green Bay ought to recognize that more than anyone.

The more important element, though, I think is just that nasty attitude that the offensive line gets when they're having success running the ball. I really believe that there's a tangible component to that attitude - to getting the defense on their heels. Also makes it harder for the defenders to rush the passer.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Yeah... I think it is just a function of Green Bay sucking.

 

[the_bird]

Here's an interesting factoid that I didn't know until today.

Brady's only played against San Francisco and Seattle once each so far in his career. The last time New England played the NFC West was in '08, when Brady was hurt.

That completely explains why the San Francisco and Seahawks fans are so annoying - they have not yet had a full opportunity to APPRECIATE the AWESOMENESS. They haven'y (yet) had the epic greatness beaten into them like the rest of the league. It makes perfect sense now!

 

[Punity]

Riiiiiight

 

[Cape Brewing]

(nodding in complete agreement with Bird's dead-on accurate analysis)

 

[bob1852]

The last time New England played the NFC West was in '08, when Brady was hurt.

That completely explains why the San Francisco and Seahawks fans are so annoying - they have not yet had a full opportunity to APPRECIATE the AWESOMENESS.

Cards fans get to see this over the weekend.

 

[McBrewskie]

You should know. Look how all that losing worked for the 9ers last decade!

Well 20 years as the most dominant football organization on the planet including a little more than a decade as the greatest NFL organization of all time and yeah it was an adjustment to losing. But you stick it out and the good times come back around.

 

[McBrewskie]

meh. you should be able to win games with 22 points.

our defense just ba-lows. i think that's what aaron was trying to convey.

"why? we put up 30ppg and the defense can't keep us in it."

What about with 15 points? That punt return was horse**** given to them by the replacement *******.