Timmy Ice Tebow...

Dahoss · #1 12-12-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

by himself? You apparently don't read because all I've said is the defense is the best part of the team.

The breakdown you did was just excuse after excuse. it didnt deserve a reply.

No, the Bears are obviously better with Cutler and Forte. But Caleb Hanie didnt play that bad. Barber ran for over 100 yards and one TD. sure, he made two bonehead plays.. but Forte could have fumbled just like Barber. Tebow still threw for 160 plus yards at the end of the game. I didnt see Urlacher hurt so you cant make an excuse for that either.

by my logic 7-1 is great in the NFL no matter who you play. Its funny.. all of the talking heads on ESPN and NFL network stopped using the competition arguement because they know its dumb. But nerdy trail analysts are smarter than former players and coaches obviously.

Weird, I thought you avoided it because you couldn't (and still can't) refute it. Silly me.

I get it though. You want to be able to have it both ways. It's okay to focus on the good (winning) but god forbid you actually dig a little deeper and look at reasons why it might have happened.

It wasn't the Bears losing the game (which is what all of those brilliant former players and coaches have been saying all day) it was the Timmy's winning it. Barber running out of bounds inexplicably in the 4th wasn't a big deal (despite Timmy saying in the post game conference that it was) because before that he had played well. And the fumble wasn't a big deal because Forte could have done it also.

The amazing thing is you were okay with diminishing Zenyatta because of competition, but you don't think the same litmus test should be applied to the Timmy's. Funny how that works.

RockHardTen1985 · #2 12-12-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Weird, I thought you avoided it because you couldn't (and still can't) refute it. Silly me.

I get it though. You want to be able to have it both ways. It's okay to focus on the good (winning) but god forbid you actually dig a little deeper and look at reasons why it might have happened.

It wasn't the Bears losing the game (which is what all of those brilliant former players and coaches have been saying all day) it was the Timmy's winning it. Barber running out of bounds inexplicably in the 4th wasn't a big deal (despite Timmy saying in the post game conference that it was) because before that he had played well. And the fumble wasn't a big deal because Forte could have done it also.

The amazing thing is you were okay with diminishing Zenyatta because of competition, but you don't think the same litmus test should be applied to the Timmy's. Funny how that works.

The Bears did blow that game, but Tebow also looked good late, again.

clyde · #3 12-12-2011, 03:39 PM

Bless me Father for I have sinned....I read the Tebow thread on NerdyTrail.

Father?

thud

Oh my God!!

I think he fainted!

Antitrust32 · #4 12-12-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Weird, I thought you avoided it because you couldn't (and still can't) refute it. Silly me.

I get it though. You want to be able to have it both ways. It's okay to focus on the good (winning) but god forbid you actually dig a little deeper and look at reasons why it might have happened.

It wasn't the Bears losing the game (which is what all of those brilliant former players and coaches have been saying all day) it was the Timmy's winning it. Barber running out of bounds inexplicably in the 4th wasn't a big deal (despite Timmy saying in the post game conference that it was) because before that he had played well. And the fumble wasn't a big deal because Forte could have done it also.

The amazing thing is you were okay with diminishing Zenyatta because of competition, but you don't think the same litmus test should be applied to the Timmy's. Funny how that works.

because there is no comparison between glorified claimers and NFL teams with sub 500 records. not even a bit of comparison. The only team that could live up to that comparison are the Colts, and Dever hasnt played them. you act like the broncos have been playing against CFL and Arena teams.

I've refuted your stupid competition arguements all day. You cherry pick every little defect of a Bronco competitor. 7-1 is 7-1 no matter how you look at it. The teams the Broncos have beat with Tebow at QB have won 39 games in the NFL this season. The only two teams that completely suck are Miami and Minny. KC can still turn it on and win games. and Oakland, New York, and Chicago just don't suck period. San Diego is on the mediocre bubble.

Denver D and Prater beat the Bears. Tebow was great at the end. Pretty sure I've been saying that all day.

Denver sucked last year. Denver sucked the first 5 games this year. Now they've won 7 of 8... but god forbid, it can't be because they are a good football team.

I diminished Zenyatta because her connections CHOSE to run her against **** horses in **** races, when she should have been taking on the boys in real races. or at least top filly competition in the East.

Dahoss · #5 12-12-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

because there is no comparison between glorified claimers and NFL teams with sub 500 records. not even a bit of comparison. The only team that could live up to that comparison are the Colts, and Dever hasnt played them.

I've refuted your stupid competition arguements all day. You cherry pick every little defect of a Bronco competitor. 7-1 is 7-1 no matter how you look at it. The teams the Broncos have beat with Tebow at QB have won 39 games in the NFL this season. The only two teams that completely suck are Miami and Minny. KC can still turn it on and win games. and Oakland, New York, and Chicago just don't suck period. San Diego is on the mediocre bubble.

Denver D and Prater beat the Bears. Tebow was great at the end. Pretty sure I've been saying that all day.

Denver sucked last year. Denver sucked the first 5 games this year. Now they've won 7 of 8... but god forbid, it can't be because they are a good football team.

The Chiefs got beat 37-10 yesterday by the Jets and the Dolphins beat the Chiefs 31-3 this year when they played. The Chiefs have lost 5 of 6 and their lone win during this span is over....wait for it....the Bears who were playing without Cutler and Forte got hurt in the first quarter.

But they can still turn it on and win games? My competition arguments might be stupid to you, but arguing about something you know very little about seems kind of stupid to me.

EDIT- To be fair, the Chiefs are playing without their starting QB and RB (one of those pesky excuses) however they were 4-5 when Cassel went down. They suck.

Antitrust32 · #6 12-12-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

The Chiefs got beat 37-10 yesterday by the Jets and the Dolphins beat the Chiefs 31-3 this year when they played. The Chiefs have lost 5 of 6 and their lone win during this span is over....wait for it....the Bears who were playing without Cutler and Forte got hurt in the first quarter.

But they can still turn it on and win games? My competition arguments might be stupid to you, but arguing about something you know very little about seems kind of stupid to me.

its stupid to everyone after 8 games. i might not have been stupid after 3 games, but now it is. Know very little about? if that makes you feel better about yourself you can think that. I know as much about pro football (since 1990) as anyone on this site. I live for September through Superbowl.

again, I talk about 7 teams, and you cherry pick the one who has still won 5 times this year.

Antitrust32 · #7 12-12-2011, 04:08 PM

Jets have won 8 games. Oh thats right, they had to cross the rockies, it doesnt count. Jets suck.

the Raiders have won 7 games. Oh thats right, they had two time Pro Bowler Carson Palmer at QB. Raiders suck.

Chicago has won 7 games. Oh yeah, Cutler and Forte were out. Doesnt matter that the backup qb didnt mess anything up and the backup RB ran for over 100 yards and a score. Cutler could have had a real tough time against Von Miller and the broncos D. He could have thrown 3 picks for all we know. and that Chicago D was there and healthy all game. oh yea, Chicago sucks.

the only thing that sucks is your arguement Hossy!

Dahoss · #8 12-12-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Jets have won 8 games. Oh thats right, they had to cross the rockies, it doesnt count. Jets suck.

the Raiders have won 7 games. Oh thats right, they had two time Pro Bowler Carson Palmer at QB. Raiders suck.

Chicago has won 7 games. Oh yeah, Cutler and Forte were out. Doesnt matter that the backup qb didnt mess anything up and the backup RB ran for over 100 yards and a score. Cutler could have had a real tough time against Von Miller and the broncos D. He could have thrown 3 picks for all we know. and that Chicago D was there and healthy all game. oh yea, Chicago sucks.

the only thing that sucks is your arguement Hossy!

Move over Adam Schefter.

Antitrust32 · #9 12-12-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Move over Adam Schefter.

how's your social life? Does it basically consist of being a smart ass on internet message boards?

Dahoss · #10 12-12-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

its stupid to everyone after 8 games. i might not have been stupid after 3 games, but now it is. Know very little about? if that makes you feel better about yourself you can think that. I know as much about pro football (since 1990) as anyone on this site. I live for September through Superbowl.

again, I talk about 7 teams, and you cherry pick the one who has still won 5 times this year.

You know as much as anyone on this site about pro football, yet had no idea if Mario Williams has been playing or not (he's been out since October)?

Come on...something doesn't jive there.

Antitrust32 · #11 12-12-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You know as much as anyone on this site about pro football, yet had no idea if Mario Williams has been playing or not (he's been out since October)?

Come on...something doesn't jive there.

I specifically asked if he was injured or playing because i havent followed the AFC south at all this year and I kind of remembered hearing he was hurt on sportscenter at the beginning of the season. At least I can admit when I don't follow a certain team.

You'll have a smart ass comeback for everything, so there is really no point in debating anything with you.

clyde · #12 12-12-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

The person who knows the most about pro football on this site -- whomever he is -- follows the AFC South too, and knew that Williams hasn't played in many weeks.

It's a little much to claim that you know as much as anyone here, but did not know that one of the league's stars has been injured for a while.

I'll be darned...it's Cardboard.

Your m.o.

It's kind of out there.

Anyways, you have a great day.

#13 12-12-2011, 05:30 PM

You know it's an off year when the Texans are worth 5 minutes of attention. That franchise is all hype. I'll stop watching the nfl if they win a sb

Dahoss · #14 12-12-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

It's too bad that reasonable critiques that rebut other posters' claims gets slapped with the "smart ass" label so frequently.

Usually, it's a misplaced label.

Hater

#15 12-12-2011, 05:36 PM

The texans are in the worst division. Faguars, Dolts, and Munchaks munchkins would make san diego look like a contender.

Antitrust32 · #16 12-19-2011, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

KC can still turn it on and win games.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

The Chiefs got beat 37-10 yesterday by the Jets and the Dolphins beat the Chiefs 31-3 this year when they played. The Chiefs have lost 5 of 6 and their lone win during this span is over....wait for it....the Bears who were playing without Cutler and Forte got hurt in the first quarter.

But they can still turn it on and win games? My competition arguments might be stupid to you, but arguing about something you know very little about seems kind of stupid to me.

.

ask the previously undefeated Packers

Dahoss · #17 12-19-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

ask the previously undefeated Packers

I figured this was coming. I stick by what I said. All of it.

Dahoss · #18 12-19-2011, 10:11 AM

For the record, John Skelton is now 5-1 as a starter for the Cardinals. No one cares (and rightfully so) but it is interesting to see the total lack of coverage it has gotten. His team is winning, not him.

#19 12-19-2011, 10:16 AM

Hoss you're too smart not to see why Tebow is dominating coverage. Ratings. Hardcore fans might care about Skelton but until he turns into a virgin and puts a halo on his head he'll never get equal airtime.

It has always been this way and Tebow isn't going to change it.

3kings · #20 12-19-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

For the record, John Skelton is now 5-1 as a starter for the Cardinals. No one cares (and rightfully so) but it is interesting to see the total lack of coverage it has gotten. His team is winning, not him.

This is a good analogy. The Defense is starting to grasp the zone blitz and playing better. They have also benifitted from playing the mediocrities on their schedule.