31-12-2003 02:27									#361
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: no I said I would take coles over davis. Well the 'Skins said the same thing . Also you said it after I said "I'd rather take Davis over Coles if I was the Redskins. " That indicates to me that you'd take Coles over Davis in this past offseason (read below). quote: in atleast 3 posts I said that I wouldn't have if I was the redskins cuz there was no1 behind davis.... No, more like two. That past one and one where you said I would do if my alternative wasn't Betts or Hambrick, BUT before that you said: "I'd probably take Coles" when I said "I'd rather take Davis over Coles if I was the Redskins." So you gave conflicting statements. You said you wouldn't take Coles over Davis if Betts was your backup, but you also said you'd take Coles over Davis if you were the 'Skins. Pardon me for 'not noticing'. And even in general, I'd still take Davis over Coles. A top 10 RB is more valuable than a top 10 WR.

I'll just cut to the end. and skip all the drivel in the middle. I assure at no time did I ever mean that the redskins should have used ladell betts as their starter. if they wanted to release davis then they had to go out and get someone. its all kind of moot neway seeing that spurrier is an awful coach.


as for the more general point. I think we merely disagree.

	31-12-2003 02:28									#362
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I assure at no time did I ever mean that the redskins should have used ladell betts as their starter.

The problem with this argument is that Betts wasn't projected to be the starter! The starter was supposed to be Trung Candidate, who many people said would be pretty decent.

	31-12-2003 02:31									#363
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I assure at no time did I ever mean that the redskins should have used ladell betts as their starter. The problem with this argument is that Betts wasn't projected to be the starter! The starter was supposed to be Trung Candidate, who many people said would be pretty decent.

well I certainly didnt expect candidate to do nething. but beyond that I didn't expect him to be used. which of course he wasn't and he didn't. either poor player projection or poor coaching. I dare not venture which considering how bad the redskins are at both.

	31-12-2003 02:31									#364
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This amuses me:

quote: Cards' Poole to attend Packers game Associated Press GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) — Green Bay Packers fans want to thank the person who made the team's playoff run possible - Arizona wide receiver Nathan Poole - and even the mayor is joining in with an invitation to Sunday's playoff game. Poole caught the game-winning touchdown pass as time ran out in Arizona on Sunday to defeat the Minnesota Vikings 18-17. The Vikings' loss gave the Packers the NFC North title and eliminated Minnesota from the playoffs. Poole will be celebrated this weekend, when he and his wife travel to Green Bay to attend the Packers' game Sunday against the Seattle Seahawks with Mayor Jim Schmitt. "Of course, he's my favorite non-Packers player," Schmitt said. "The Packers deserve to be in the playoffs, and the way the system works they wouldn't have been allowed in without a (Cardinals) victory over the Vikings, and Nathan played a big part of that." Schmitt's invitation took Poole by surprise. "I heard that the fans in Green Bay were quite some fans, but I didn't expect this," he said in a telephone interview Monday with the Green Bay Press-Gazette. He wasn't even thinking about the Packers when he made his catch at the end of the game. "I was just trying to get a victory for the team because we've been down," Poole said. Schmitt also will give Poole a key to the city. "Anyone who assists in getting us in the playoffs like Nathan did is a friend of the city," Schmitt said. Local hotels, too, want to thank Poole for the increased revenue his catch will bring them. Hotel employees have been busy reserving rooms since soon after the playoff picture was finalized. "I thought, maybe we should send a fruit basket to this guy, because he's just dropping money into our lap," said Todd Casper, front-office manager at the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center in Ashwaubenon. The hotel is already booked for Sunday night, he said. Casper acknowledged to basking in the Lambeau Field revelry Sunday night after the game. "There was about 10 minutes of enjoyment before I thought, `Oh my God, I really need to be at work,"' he said.

He'll be a more popular Packer than Cardinal. Maybe they'll try to trade for him .

	31-12-2003 02:37									#365
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

for interests sake.

6 of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs
5 of the top 10 rushing teams are inthe playoffs
5 of the top 10 turnover differential teams are in the playoffs

and 5 of the top 10 defenses are in the playoffs

doesn't seem to be leaning any particular direction at all.

ahh but 8 of the top 10 offenses are in the playoffs.

	31-12-2003 02:53									#366
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by yavoon ahh but 8 of the top 10 offenses are in the playoffs.

The #1 isn't =D

	31-12-2003 02:54									#367
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 5 of the top 10 rushing teams are inthe playoffs

It's actually 6 of the top 10: Baltimore, Denver, Green Bay, Carolina, Philadelphia, and Seattle.

Anyway, balance is of course needed. However, a running game is needed for going far in the postseason. Also I'd still take the stud back over the stud WR.

	31-12-2003 02:56									#368
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Zopperoni The #1 isn't =D

well I went on pts. yards I think its 7/10. but the top 5 in points are all in.

KC, indy, st louis, green bay, tennessee

the next 5 are minni, seattle, baltimore, SF, denver

of which minni and SF aren't in.

	31-12-2003 02:58									#369
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 5 of the top 10 rushing teams are inthe playoffs It's actually 6 of the top 10: Baltimore, Denver, Green Bay, Carolina, Philadelphia, and Seattle. Anyway, balance is of course needed. However, a running game is needed for going far in the postseason. Also I'd still take the stud back over the stud WR.

so new england doesn't have a shot? what aobut tampa last year? pittman is a very long ways away from stud.

	31-12-2003 03:01									#370
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Besides, the Patriots have only allowed thirteen points in their last four home games. All thirteen points being scored by the Jaguars BTW.

The games against Dallas, Miami, and Buffalo were all shutouts

	31-12-2003 03:21									#371
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yeah the Patriots look like the best defensive team out there. I don't have to look up the stats on the year to see that they are now dominating games with their defense.

New England should win the Superbowl and carry on the tradition that the best defensive team wins.

	31-12-2003 04:06									#372
	Suffering from ads?

quote: so new england doesn't have a shot? what aobut tampa last year? pittman is a very long ways away from stud.

A.

Ask Reismark, the resident Tampa fan here. As he'll tell you the Bucs started being championship material when their running game was working. And it ain't just Pittman, Alstott had some big games as well.

I'm not on the New England bandwagon. Unless they can run in January (with either Smith and/or Faulk), I don't think they even get to the big game.

And of course NEITHER Tampa last year nor New England this year has a stud WR.

B.

Once again you misconstrue my statements. I said made a general statement which specific examples aren't going to counter. It's like saying that Oakland and Florida prove that money doesn't mean to success in baseball. Also I said nothing about studs in the playoffs, but just a good running game.

	31-12-2003 04:28									#373
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think it's fair to say that both when it happened and throughout the season, the vast majority of NFL experts and pundits ranged from mystified to highly critical of Spurrier's dumping of Stephen Davis. I can't recall anyone supporting it.

If it was done as an either/or so Washington could afford Coles (though that's not how I remember it coming down), I think it's fair to say the season results showed the "wisdom" of Spurrier's decision.

Canidate was a known quantity -- a potentially productive back with limited ability to pick up the blitz and a strong tendency to fumble. With this decision, Spurrier turned his back on the running game and, in turn, on ball control. Ultimately, his (very talented)defense paid the price.

You reap what you sow, and I'd say 5-11 (after going 7-9 his first year) is about right. I knew he was arrogant. I knew he was a jerk. But what surprises me about Spurrier is --
He's a QUITTER!!

	31-12-2003 04:40									#374
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: so new england doesn't have a shot? what aobut tampa last year? pittman is a very long ways away from stud. A. Ask Reismark, the resident Tampa fan here. As he'll tell you the Bucs started being championship material when their running game was working. And it ain't just Pittman, Alstott had some big games as well. I'm not on the New England bandwagon. Unless they can run in January (with either Smith and/or Faulk), I don't think they even get to the big game. And of course NEITHER Tampa last year nor New England this year has a stud WR. B. Once again you misconstrue my statements. I said made a general statement which specific examples aren't going to counter. It's like saying that Oakland and Florida prove that money doesn't mean to success in baseball. Also I said nothing about studs in the playoffs, but just a good running game.

I CERTAINLY dont advocate not having a running game. and tampa is a perfect example of a team that produced a running game w/o a stud back. so is new england sorta. well they have the infancy of a running game (100 yards last 2 weeks).

u sed u'd take the stud rb over the stud wr(which a lot of other ppl would too). I said that I would take the wr. so u respond to that saying I dont want to be able to run the ball?!?!?! what kind of bullshit is this?!

	31-12-2003 04:45									#375
	Remove this text

Get a room, you two.

	31-12-2003 04:52									#376
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: u sed u'd take the stud rb over the stud wr(which a lot of other ppl would too). I said that I would take the wr. so u respond to that saying I dont want to be able to run the ball?!?!?!

When did I say ANYTHING of the sort? Once again, you have a major problem with miscontruing statements. All I said is that a good running game is needed to go far in the playoffs and you jump on it saying so teams without good running games can't go far ever?!

You keep going to the 'stud back' when I CLEARLY say 'running game'. What kind of bullshit is that?!

quote: If it was done as an either/or so Washington could afford Coles (though that's not how I remember it coming down)

Well if you look at the cap numbers, if the Redskins kept Davis they couldn't afford Coles. The only reason Coles is a Redskin is because Davis is gone. And Spurrier wanted another big WR. So yeah, I think, looking back, it is fair to say that Davis was cut so Washington could afford Coles (though they would have taken Price as well).

	31-12-2003 04:55									#377
	Increase Your PM Length

"And even in general, I'd still take Davis over Coles. A top 10 RB is more valuable than a top 10 WR"

ur so full of crap imran. just go away.

	31-12-2003 05:03									#378
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Why am I full of crap, because I'm right?

Once again MISCONTRUING my statement. I really have to question your ability to read. Obviously I was responding to 'u respond to that saying I dont want to be able to run the ball'. Reading IS fundamental.

Where does the statement you quoted contradict ANYTHING I've said with running games in general during the playoffs? It's totally different.

Top 10 Rushers:

Lewis, Balt
Green, GB
Tomlinson, SD
McAllister, NO
Portis, Den
Taylor, Jac
Davis, Car
Alexander, Sea
Holmes, KC
Williams, Mia

Top 10 Recievers:

Holt, StL
Moss, Min
Boldin, Ari
Ward, Pit
Mason, Ten
Harrison, Ind
Johnson, Cin
Smith, Jac
McCardell, TB
Coles, Was

I think the Top 10 RBs easily trump the Top 10 WRs.

Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 31-12-2003 at 05:09

	31-12-2003 05:11									#379
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: But what surprises me about Spurrier is -- He's a QUITTER!!

Actually it looks more like he was forced out as well.

	31-12-2003 05:14									#380
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Why am I full of crap, because I'm right? Once again MISCONTRUING my statement. I really have to question your ability to read. Obviously I was responding to 'u respond to that saying I dont want to be able to run the ball'. Reading IS fundamental. Where does the statement you quoted contradict ANYTHING I've said with running games in general during the playoffs? It's totally different. Top 10 Rushers: Lewis, Balt Green, GB Tomlinson, SD McAllister, NO Portis, Den Taylor, Jac Davis, Car Alexander, Sea Holmes, KC Williams, Mia Top 10 Recievers: Holt, StL Moss, Min Boldin, Ari Ward, Pit Mason, Ten Harrison, Ind Johnson, Cin Smith, Jac McCardell, TB Coles, Was I think the Top 10 RBs easily trump the Top 10 WRs.

ur full of **** cuz u tried to imply that this was about running games in general when obviously it started w/ davis and coles and then went to "good rb vs good wr."

thats why sir, u are full of ****.
oh and btw, it doesn't bother me. but its misconstrue. just fyi.

honestly if u were just less antagonistic this would all be solved peacably. but u go flying around attacking crap all the time that its hard.

	31-12-2003 05:19									#381
	Got spare money?

quote: ur full of **** cuz u tried to imply that this was about running games in general when obviously it started w/ davis and coles and then went to "good rb vs good wr."

So you are admitting that you can't follow a simple threadjack? Ah, nice to know.

Davis v. Coles IS the argument about good running games. Because the choice was made not to go for a good running game.

Look, this is easy. When I talk about running games in general, I'M TALKING ABOUT RUNNING GAMES! When I talk about good RBs v. good WRs, I'm talking about that!! Jeez, Louise!

quote: honestly if u were just less antagonistic this would all be solved peacably. but u go flying around attacking crap all the time that its hard.

Honestly, if you could read better and follow the arguments better, this could have been solved peacefully. But you can't follow simple differing arguments and have to lump everything together assuming 'good running game' is talking about 'stud RB' even though I've made the distinction!

	31-12-2003 05:29									#382
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: ur full of **** cuz u tried to imply that this was about running games in general when obviously it started w/ davis and coles and then went to "good rb vs good wr." So you are admitting that you can't follow a simple threadjack? Ah, nice to know. Davis v. Coles IS the argument about good running games. Because the choice was made not to go for a good running game. Look, this is easy. When I talk about running games in general, I'M TALKING ABOUT RUNNING GAMES! When I talk about good RBs v. good WRs, I'm talking about that!! Jeez, Louise! quote: honestly if u were just less antagonistic this would all be solved peacably. but u go flying around attacking crap all the time that its hard. Honestly, if you could read better and follow the arguments better, this could have been solved peacefully. But you can't follow simple differing arguments and have to lump everything together assuming 'good running game' is talking about 'stud RB' even though I've made the distinction!

sorry I stick to one thing at a time. I never responded once to ur whole running game piece of crap. so I don't know why u keep bringing it up.

god u r so useless as a person. can u not hold one discussion about one thing sensibly? not meander flame the other person then get mad when he doesn't want to keep running around w/ his head cut off?

	31-12-2003 05:44									#383
	Suffering from ads?

I see two people who NEED TO CHILL

Stop with the personal insults... or I'll make sure you won't be able to post any additional ones.

	31-12-2003 06:00									#384
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ming I see two people who NEED TO CHILL Stop with the personal insults... or I'll make sure you won't be able to post any additional ones.

What did I do now?

	31-12-2003 07:10									#385
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

hey I have poll

who's the most talented team to not make the playoffs?

probable options are:
Vikings
Niners
Bengals
Dolphins
Bills

and who's the least talented team IN the playoffs?

I'd have to say Niners and Patriots

	31-12-2003 07:13									#386
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Um... you put Niners in both polls .

A. Dolphins (any other year in the AFC and they would have made it)
B. Denver (when they are firing on all cylinders it is a thing a beauty to watch)

	31-12-2003 07:20									#387
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Ask Reismark, the resident Tampa fan here. As he'll tell you the Bucs started being championship material when their running game was working. And it ain't just Pittman, Alstott had some big games as well.

Bingo. Tampa had success at the end of last year because the running game was finally working. The forgotten stat of the Super Bowl is Pittman's 120+ yards on the ground, against a (at the time) stout Raiders defensive line, and a big reason for that was Alstott. There's two reasons we weren't able to duplicate our success this year:

-- The running game took a hit when we lost Alstott for the season in early October. This necessitated the defense carrying the load as in prior years...

-- ...which was something it wasn't able to do because of the injuries (specifically in the secondary) that it sustained. If anyone ever tells you that Brian Kelly isn't an important part of the Bucs' success, that's bullshit.

It was just time for Tampa to absorb a few hits from the football gods. But no matter, Alstott and Kelly will be healthy and hungry come September and we'll be back with a vengeance.

And Imran: I still like the Patriots in the AFC, but I'd be very afraid of the Ravens right now. They seem to be putting it together at the right time and Lewis is good enough to carry their offense through a game. This season, more than any, it's all about how the matchups break down...

	31-12-2003 07:29									#388
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I still like the Patriots in the AFC, but I'd be very afraid of the Ravens right now. They seem to be putting it together at the right time and Lewis is good enough to carry their offense through a game. This season, more than any, it's all about how the matchups break down...

This (the matchups) is also why I like Denver. They match up very well against Indy and then (since they are a 6) very well against KC. I can see them going to the Superbowl if Portis and Plummer stay healthy.

	31-12-2003 08:00									#389
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui This (the matchups) is also why I like Denver. They match up very well against Indy and then (since they are a 6) very well against KC. I can see them going to the Superbowl if Portis and Plummer stay healthy.

Denver would play New England should they make it past Indianapolis, not Kansas City.

	31-12-2003 08:01									#390
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... you put Niners in both polls . A. Dolphins (any other year in the AFC and they would have made it) B. Denver (when they are firing on all cylinders it is a thing a beauty to watch)

this answer my poll or some different poll?