StarDestroyer.Net BBS

havokeff wrote:38-18 on the year.
48-22 if you count week 3 which I didn't post here.

Can anyone figure out the winning %? I hate math.

You hate math? Get out, just get out.

.679 on the first, .686 on the second. (I rounded up)

Darth Quorthon wrote:

havokeff wrote:38-18 on the year.
48-22 if you count week 3 which I didn't post here.

Can anyone figure out the winning %? I hate math.

You hate math? Get out, just get out.

.679 on the first, .686 on the second. (I rounded up)

Sweet. Thanks. And it's not so much a hatred as just a complete fundamental non-understanding of it

Jason von Evil wrote:Texans? Wtf? That's the first time I've ever heard of them.

Anyways, question about the Chargers/Steelers game about a week or two back. The commentators were talking about the Chargers first TD of the game and why the ref had to rewatch a replay of whoever it was catching the ball. One of them mentioned some little known rule that said something to the effect that if a player jumps, catches the ball and lands either ball heel or heel ball first near the boundary line, the TD didn't count. Supposedly that was the reason the ref had to watch the replay (which didn't happen, because the machine refs use broke).

The hell kind of rule is that? Who gives a shit what part of the foot touches the ground first?

If one part of the foot initially hits the ground in bounds (like the toes or the ball of the foot), but the rest of the foot touches out of bounds (like the heel) in the same motion, then the whole foot is considered out of bounds. In other words, having one part of your foot land in bounds a spilt second before the rest of the foot hits out of bounds in the same move does not give you a catch. Floyd's toes landed in bounds when he caught the ball and the rest of his feet were off the ground until the defender pushed him out. Touchdown, San Diego.

ATTN. EAGLES DEFENSE:

If have counted all your fingers, and your pecker, and there are still extra players on the field, you have too many and somebody has to leave.

Jesus Christ.

I would judt like to say

THE LIONS WON??


I know they tried to loose it there at the end with that interception, but it feels nice to win. Wonder if the Tigers rubbed off on them.

This is the worst thing that could happen for the Lions, nothing will get changed as long as they win 5-6 games every year. They'll have to work hard to get losses out of SF, Arizona, and Miami, but it's important that they drop those games!

RedImperator wrote:ATTN. EAGLES DEFENSE:

If have counted all your fingers, and your pecker, and there are still extra players on the field, you have too many and somebody has to leave.

Jesus Christ.

EAGLES DEFENSE: "Coach I swear we all counted 11 guys!"

ANDY REID: "Well did you guys count yourselves?" *chomps on cheesesteak*

EAGLES D: "Ohhhhhhhh......"

CROWD: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


PART #2 (Instead of making another post):

Which number will be the largest at the end of this year:

a-Bears' Wins
b-Colts' Wins
c-Raiders' Losses
d-T.O. Controversies

pick one.

RedImperator wrote:ATTN. EAGLES DEFENSE:

If have counted all your fingers, and your pecker, and there are still extra players on the field, you have too many and somebody has to leave.

Jesus Christ.

They picked quite possibly the worst time to do it too.

An amazing game to watch, though. New Orleans was spectacular, especially on the last drive, and other than that little incident Philadelphia has nothing to be ashamed of.

1. Fire Mike Gandy
2. If JP drops more than 3 steps the rest of the season, I will be waiting in the high grass for Steve Fairchild.
3. My draft/Offseason wishlist now includes a 6'+, 210+lbs reciever and Julius Peppers
4. Bring back the "1100lbs D-Line" scheme.

Dude. Oakland suck.

RedImperator wrote:ATTN. EAGLES DEFENSE:

If have counted all your fingers, and your pecker, and there are still extra players on the field, you have too many and somebody has to leave.

Jesus Christ.

How does that happen? Do they not have someone among the 173 people on the sidelines who can keep a simple count?

Oh, and one other thing: Clock management.

thejester wrote:Dude. Oakland suck.

Jamie Dukes on the NFL Network said this is the worst team since the Jets under Rich Kotite. Kotite was known as Rich Kotex on the grounds that his team played like bloated pussies. They went 1-15. I don't see any team the Raitards have on their schedule that they have a good chance of beating. The game earlier tonight was about as good a chance as they could hope for: a division rival looking ahead to the next opponent and playing like shit -and they still lost by 10 points. Maybe they can get it up against a floundering Chiefs team, but I doubt it. Just as no soldier or Marine in 1971-73 wanted to be the last man to die in Vietnam, no professional team wants to be the one to give the Raitards their only win this season.

FSTargetDrone wrote:How does that happen? Do they not have someone among the 173 people on the sidelines who can keep a simple count?

Oh, and one other thing: Clock management.

Players are substituted in groups, not individuals. So the extra guy probably thought he was supposed to be out there in the defense called. He realized he wasn't supposed to be out there until it was too late and couldn't get off the field before the ball was snapped. He got an earfull from DC Jim Johnson on the sideline. That fuckup pretty much cost them the game.

Elfdart wrote:

thejester wrote:Dude. Oakland suck.

Jamie Dukes on the NFL Network said this is the worst team since the Jets under Rich Kotite. Kotite was known as Rich Kotex on the grounds that his team played like bloated pussies. They went 1-15. I don't see any team the Raitards have on their schedule that they have a good chance of beating. The game earlier tonight was about as good a chance as they could hope for: a division rival looking ahead to the next opponent and playing like shit -and they still lost by 10 points. Maybe they can get it up against a floundering Chiefs team, but I doubt it. Just as no soldier or Marine in 1971-73 wanted to be the last man to die in Vietnam, no professional team wants to be the one to give the Raitards their only win this season.

What's wrong with them - specific departments (QB seemed pretty awful) or just shit across the board?

The biggest problem is the head honcho, Al Davis. His record of drafting and trading for talent is about the best there has ever been in the NFL. He has also brought in four different coaches to take the team to Super Bowls. So he has an eye for talent second to none in the history of the game. The problem is that he's now a hidebound, stubborn control freak. The last coach who disagreed with him (Jon Gruden) was fired and went on to win the championship with Tampa Bay (over the Raiders, by the way). Players know who really runs the team and it's not whichever sockpuppet -er, head coach- is hired. Discipline is shitty (11 stupid penalties last night) and most of the players give half-hearted efforts. The fact that the Raiders' coaching staff is a kind of jobs program for Davis' loyal flunkies doesn't help.

When Davis got rid of Norv Turner this past off season, none of the available up-and-coming candidates for HC jobs wanted any part of the Raiders because they knew they wouldn't really be the coach. So a few weeks before training started, Davis finally settled on Art Shell, a coach he had fired over a decade ago for not doing as he was told. Shell took the job for the same reason his predecessors did: It's their only shot at an HC position. The kinds of coaches Davis can get are exactly the kind that a pro team doesn't need. One reason the offense sucks is that OC Tom Walsh was (I shit you not) running a bed & breakfast and had been out of coaching for several years. The late hiring of Shell caused the later hire of Walsh. So it's no wonder that the offense is in pre-season form.

The Raiders have always been a highly penalized team. The difference is that from the 60s-80s, those penalties were for fighting and other deliberate acts of intimidation. It wasn't for false starts, not lining up properly and that kind of chickenshit.

I looked over the Raitards' schedule and there's maybe three games (home against the Cardinals, Chiefs and Texans) that look like possible wins. Would I bet on them to win any one of them? No.

The Bucs won?

phongn wrote:The Bucs won?

Barely. Did you see that catch? It almost didn't count. If it weren't for the whole Reply Review thing, it wouldn't have.

Incidently, that's pretty much the only part of the game I saw, because I happened to flip to CBS in the last three minutes or so of the game.

thejester wrote:What's wrong with them - specific departments (QB seemed pretty awful) or just shit across the board?

The Raiders are actually a reasonably talented bunch. They're deep, especially at receiver, but they don't play like a team at all. They're like Detroit last year, after most of the Lions had quit on the season, except that unlike the Lions, NONE of the Raiders have decided to step up and try even harder just for themselves. The Raiders' have a bad linebacking corps, and their offensive and defensive lines are soft. At QB, they're pretty deficient, especially with Brooks on the sidelines injured--and he's not real good, himself.

All-in-all, the Raiders have a better chance of going 0-for-2006 than the Bears or the Colts have of running the table the other way.

Master of Ossus wrote:

thejester wrote:What's wrong with them - specific departments (QB seemed pretty awful) or just shit across the board?

The Raiders are actually a reasonably talented bunch. They're deep, especially at receiver, but they don't play like a team at all. They're like Detroit last year, after most of the Lions had quit on the season, except that unlike the Lions, NONE of the Raiders have decided to step up and try even harder just for themselves. The Raiders' have a bad linebacking corps, and their offensive and defensive lines are soft. At QB, they're pretty deficient, especially with Brooks on the sidelines injured--and he's not real good, himself.

All-in-all, the Raiders have a better chance of going 0-for-2006 than the Bears or the Colts have of running the table the other way.

It's hard to say that the Radiers have a soft D-line and bad linebackers. They get ZERO support from their offense and are forced onto the field constantly. Talk to Warren Sapp about how that feels as I'm sure he is having flashbacks of the shitty Bucks offense. The problem is thie defense isn't NEAR as good as that one was.

The linebackers are actually a bright spot on the D.

Watching Chicago self-destruct in the 1st half was interesting, to say the least.

Matt Leinart doesn't put up the most impressive QB numbers of the year, but throws 2 TDs and no picks in a win against one of the best teams in the NFL. I'm suitably impressed.

EDIT:

(Made with about 3:00 left in the 2nd Quarter)

So I flick over to ESPN thinking the game is over by now and what do I see? HOLY SHIT What a clutch Punt Return. If i'm the guy running special teams in AZ I have to puke at how that kick return was covered. Bears up by 1.

Dude. No fucking way.

Rakcers Chokes for the second week straight. Bears win without scoring a TD on Offense. The final drive was an otherwise good showing for Leinart, who seems to have what it takes to be an NFL quarterback.

And I know i'm beating the same drum over and over again but. SHUT THE FUCK UP KORNHEISER. THeismann has intuitive and interesting things to say for the first time since he became a TV announcer and you want to fucking talk about 'Entourage'. Eat shit.

The Cardinals got robbed, they outclassed the Bears in every other period than that last one.

Oh well, the dream continues.

Maybe so but as it stands the Cards are 1 and 5. And believe it or not, theres many in Arizona who are just fine with this. The Cards, mostly because of their owner and the boondogle of a new stadium are NOT well liked at all.