1. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    25 Dec '10 17:521 edit
    that the pats will win their 4th super bowl.
  2. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    25 Dec '10 18:13
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    that the pats will win their 4th super bowl.
    I hope you're right. I simply do not want monster Vick getting the MVP or a SB ring, SB MVP and thus avoid his ugly torturer mug pitching products to the unsuspecting. He already said he'd vote himself MVP. Modesty like that bodes poorly for future!
  3. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    25 Dec '10 21:35
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    I hope you're right. I simply do not want monster Vick getting the MVP or a SB ring, SB MVP and thus avoid his ugly torturer mug pitching products to the unsuspecting. He already said he'd vote himself MVP. Modesty like that bodes poorly for future!
    pats will play the bears or falcons.
  4. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    26 Dec '10 14:18
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    pats will play the bears or falcons.
    I have a feeling it will be Pats-NO. Saints coming into their groove!
  5. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    26 Dec '10 15:08
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    that the pats will win their 4th super bowl.
    It's quite possible, if...they can stay healthy through the playoffs.
  6. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    26 Dec '10 15:15
    Originally posted by bill718
    It's quite possible, if...they can stay healthy through the playoffs.
    Falcons are looking good! What is an embarrassment is we might have a team under .500 in playoffs for first time ever and a team at 10-6 eliminated. I guess we'll know better about NO after MNF tomorrow! Whatever happens happens.
  7. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    26 Dec '10 18:021 edit
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Falcons are looking good! What is an embarrassment is we might have a team under .500 in playoffs for first time ever and a team at 10-6 eliminated. I guess we'll know better about NO after MNF tomorrow! Whatever happens happens.
    on a stike season the Browns and Lions were 4-5. look early 80's.
  8. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    28 Dec '10 12:33
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    on a stike season the Browns and Lions were 4-5. look early 80's.
    That's what asterisks were invented for! That does not count. At any rate, did you watch the game last night? NO put in a heck of a performance and won in spite of the two turnovers! I do decalre they're lookin' good!
  9. Subscribershortcircuit
    The Energizer
    where you want to be
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    66515
    29 Dec '10 06:54
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    That's what asterisks were invented for! That does not count. At any rate, did you watch the game last night? NO put in a heck of a performance and won in spite of the two turnovers! I do decalre they're lookin' good!
    Asterisks don't count?? What the hell is that??

    Your statement said it had never happened, and he provided proof that it had.

    Perhaps you should amend your statement to say "Has never happened in a fully played season, or with the exception of the strike shortened season.

    For what it is worth, a few years ago, the Colts were the wild card team at 12-4 I think. They were matched in the first round against the Chargers who were 8-8 I believe.
    The Chargers won the game. Granted 8-8 is .500, but only 1 game away from being sub .500.
    Yet, they won the game against a team that was heavily favored to beat them.
    So, a sub .500 record does not mean they couldn't win it all. Right?
  10. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    29 Dec '10 12:39
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Asterisks don't count?? What the hell is that??

    Your statement said it had never happened, and he provided proof that it had.

    Perhaps you should amend your statement to say "Has never happened in a fully played season, or with the exception of the strike shortened season.

    For what it is worth, a few years ago, the Colts were the wild card team ...[text shortened]... y favored to beat them.
    So, a sub .500 record does not mean they couldn't win it all. Right?
    Has there ever been a 8-8 team in the SB? No! So what's your point? Generally 8-8 teams string more than 3 losses together before reaching the lowly state. TThree consecutive loss teams are generally bad. We may have a really bad "contender" this season. Might they go all the way? Unlikely!
  11. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    29 Dec '10 19:493 edits
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    That's what asterisks were invented for! That does not count. At any rate, did you watch the game last night? NO put in a heck of a performance and won in spite of the two turnovers! I do decalre they're lookin' good!
    I saw the first 10 minutes. But i do hope the rams win so that a 7-9 team can't make it. And that the Saints go into St. Louis and get upset. If the seahawks can make it and beat the pats they will be 11-9.

    In Super Bowl 2 the Packers were 9-4-1 and also the 49ers(SB 23) and Giants(SB 42) had a 10-6 record. some teams were champions in the early years at 8-4 in a 12 game season and that is like having a 11-5 season now.
  12. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    30 Dec '10 12:21
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    I saw the first 10 minutes. But i do hope the rams win so that a 7-9 team can't make it. And that the Saints go into St. Louis and get upset. If the seahawks can make it and beat the pats they will be 11-9.

    In Super Bowl 2 the Packers were 9-4-1 and also the 49ers(SB 23) and Giants(SB 42) had a 10-6 record. some teams were champions in the early years at 8-4 in a 12 game season and that is like having a 11-5 season now.
    First wild card to make SB was the Cowboys and they lost to Steelers. Anyone might get hot, but 8-8 teams get that way by sloppy play in the small things, bad clock mgt and so on. I frankly don't see Rams upsetting anyon. It does not look like Seahawks can win without Hasselbeck, so we will be spared a sub .500 team.
  13. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    03 Jan '11 14:57
    There it is! First ever losing team to win a division is the Seahawks! How far will they make it? I doubt they can beat NO. With the recent crop of injuries it is doubtful NO makes it all the way, but should take care of SEattle!
  14. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223260
    03 Jan '11 18:37
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    There it is! First ever losing team to win a division is the Seahawks! How far will they make it? I doubt they can beat NO. With the recent crop of injuries it is doubtful NO makes it all the way, but should take care of SEattle!
    They already lost to NO this year. But they are pumped up for the game I beat. But did you see that the anoucers had to say first ever team with a losing record in a foul season. They didn't say first ever team with a losing record to make the playoffs.
  15. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    03 Jan '11 18:41
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    They already lost to NO this year. But they are pumped up for the game I beat. But did you see that the anoucers had to say first ever team with a losing record in a foul season. They didn't say first ever team with a losing record to make the playoffs.
    They meant to win a division. Therein lies the difference. Indeed the Seahawks are going to be dangerous indeed and might surprise NO. However, NO's D is way better than the Ram's D. Crowd noise may be a factor.
Back to Top