daquixers_is_back
-
Posts
3,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by daquixers_is_back
-
-
Any word on Noel Devine? The kid looked amazing in HS.
ESPN analyst Michael Irvin, "Noel is a rare talent. He reminds me of a young Barry Sanders."
Edit: I just learned he had over 1,000 all purpose yards in his first 4 games his senior year.
-
I have now played the Wii multiple times ... it is a fun gaming system, although I still strongly prefer the Xbox360. Since certain people on this board do not like me classifying people into "hardcore" and "non-hardcore", I will simply say this. I could certainly see the market share of Wii consumers being between 6-16 and then 40+ and older.
-
Defeat? We were the ones defeated and had our asses kicked by Vince in our home park. Where was the secondary in containing this guy?
Fact: He's a Pro Bowler in Year 1. First rookie to do so since Marino. What facts do you still need help with?
Uhm ... Vince Young's team beat us (The Bills) by ONE point in our home park after Jauron decided to go for fourth down instead of kicking a field goal to possibly win the game. Is that what you meant by getting our "asses kicked" ???
P.S. Vince Young is only in the pro-bowl because Philip Rivers got injured!
-
That's baloney. You've posted the same thing verbatim two other times. You've interjected your feelings already in your previous replies to your previous identical posts. The story has spoken for itself and people have commented on it in your two previous incarnations of the same post.
And yet you still continue to reply to it, thus feeding it. Who owns the problem?
-
Where the hell did you come from?
Rochester?
-
The rock star -- aka Vince Young -- is the first rookie QB to play in the Pro Bowl since Dan Marino. I'd want that type of a football player.
Pro-Bowl is a popularity contest ... and as pointed out, Marino never won a SB. If you think his 2,000 yards, 12 TD's, 13 INT's, and SUB-70 QB rating got him into the pro-bowl then you are sadly mistaken. Don't get me wrong. Maybe Vince Young will become a superstar. Yet I see him more like a mix between Steve McNair and Mike Vick. Once d-coordinators figure out how to stop him ........
-
Even if this were true, I would have no problem with it. I would love Golisano to own the Bills.
-
Peyton Manning proved that you and the topic starter have a far better grasp of the quarterback position than others here. I'd like to ask you if you think that JP Losman has what it takes to be successful in the offensive scheme being used in Buffalo right now?
To be completely honest, I have no idea. Even after one full season, I have no clue what type of offensive identitiy this coaching staff is trying to put together. We run 30+ times one game and then 10 times the next game.
-
It's great that you pretend like I'm the spin-doctor when you're the one pulling a selective sample of games out of thin air. "My way" is looking at his entire career, which I don't think is unfair seeing as though he had two full seasons under his belt by the time he played his first play postseason game.
He has had more than 2 bad games - that's a fact and that's all I was responding to.
And then I said that in his past 10 playoff games, he has had 2 bad games ... and you responded to that also. I also was not trying to make you out to be a "spin-doctor" ... whatever you think that is.
-
Even in that game, I thought Harrison and Marcus Pollard, above all else, spent more time whining to officials than working to get open. If you're not getting the calls, deal w/ it. Trust me, they're not the only team to get the short end of the stick when it comes to the officials.
Once again, I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that the referees called such a bad game that it influenced the NFL to reinforce the rule.
-
I was wondering the same thing last night. Is Manning that elusive or is the OL of the Colts that good. The RT was a rookie who was filling in for the starter. But hey, the Bears OL is pretty good, and well Grossman looked awful.
A few years ago I tended to think that Manning simply had a great 0-line. Then I started watching all of Indianapolis's games. He has AMAZING pocket presence. He knows exactly when to roll out of the pocket and buy a few more seconds. He RARELY gets blindsided, as he tends to feel the pressure coming. Case in point: The Colts first TD yesterday (the long pass to Wayne). The Colts line broke down, and Manning escaped a few would-be-sackers and threw a long TD while being hit.
As far as the original posters questions, I would really only want (at this point), one of two QB's on the team rather than Losman. Manning or Brady. And that choice would be extremely tough. They both have their upsides, but the way Manning has finally proven he is a leader, and one that can win a SB, I would have to pick Manning. I always considered Manning the better QB, and Brady the more natural winner. Now that the latter part is a little more even, I would have to take Manning. Nothing against Brady though. He (IMO) is still in the top 3 QB's today and a sure future HOF'er. Yet I like that Manning has an insanely strong arm. I like that Manning continues to impress his critics (I especially liked that he did it in the RAIN yesterday, instead of perfect weather).
-
Ok so Rosenhaus is an ass because he throws superbowl parties and we hate jim kelly cause he got fat and mcgahee sucks because he isn't as good as a HOF RB? Anything else I'm missing?
No kidding.
-
Yeah you can take away his two worst games from a selective time period and make his stats look good.
You can also take away the two Denver games from his whole postseason career and make them look bad.
... and if I was taking out 5 of his 10 playoff games, then you would have a point. Yet I am only taking out TWO of his playoff games. My point being that EVERYONE, has a bad game once in a while. 2 bad playoff games out of 10 is not a bad number, in my personal opinion. But hey, lets look at it in your way for a minute. Lets throw in his 2 worst games ... so now we have his COMPLETE last 10 playoff games, bad and good, and he STILL comes out to somewhere around a 91 or 92 passer rating.
-
Since the Colts didn't play the Patriots in every postseason game during Harrison's career, that's a load of crap. Harrison just doesn't show up in the big games. People bring up the fact that he's double covered a lot so others get more opportunities, but I can think of a receiver who had tremendous success in a Super Bowl while being the only true receiving threat (Terrell Owens, who I despise, but you give credit where it's due).
I'll bet if you looked @ the postseason stats of the top 15 WRs, very few of them have as significant a dropoff in production from regular season to postseason as Harrison does.
Here's something I prepared a while ago (before this year's playoffs), for your reading pleasure. I did this to answer all the "Peyton Manning chokes in the big game/It's all Peyton's fault" critics:
I'm not sure what your getting at, considering I agree with everything you put in your post. I was simply talking about ONE post-season game, the year before the 5 yard chuck rule was reinforced, that TY Law and Co. were all over Harrison and Co. making it harder for Manning to complete passes downfield. Thats all I was saying. I never brought up every postseason game or anything to that point.
-
Yeah, well that's blatantly false.
I believe most of his truly poor playoff games were from 1999-2002. Since then he has thrown 2937 yards, 17 TD's and 13 INT's. In those next 10 playoff games, he had two truly bad games. This year against Baltimore and in 2003 against NE. He combined for 1 TD and 6 INT in those TWO games. In the other EIGHT games he had 16 TD's, and 7 INT's.
-
dumbasses..........
One of the few things we seem to agree on. Peyton was and is a spectacular player.
How DARE people say such a thing! Especially while he was getting his azz handed to him year after year after year.Takes a sh---ton of courage to say "I told you so" five seconds after the Super Bowl.
He was? Year after year, he had a terrible playoff defense and the secondaries of other teams were raping his receivers. I cant remember what year it was, but it was the playoffs before they started to reinforce the 5-yard chuck rule. Ty Law and company was all over Harrison and Co, 20-30 yards down field, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was doing so poorly?
-
Don't tell that to some on this board, who feel he's a "system qb" who has only luck on his side.
I use to think this also (along with TOMCAT), I since have changed my mind. I do still believe that Manning is the better QB though, but we have already had that debate.
I used to think that also....but luck only goes so far...consistant luck is not luck. He does it with nobodys which makes it even more impressive.I love the "he has done it with nobody" arguement, that every Patriot fan brings up. It is simply funny. As if Charlie Weiss, Bill Belichick, Dillon, Branch, Givens, Graham, Watson ... etc are just nobody's. Let me just re-post something I posted in another topic related to this:
I see Tom Brady as a player who gets some credit he does not deserve and some people don't give Manning the credit he DOES deserve. Lets be honest ... how well does anyone think Brady would do in a long-rage full field type of offense? The type of offense Manning has mastered. Looking at his porous stats in the long passing game, I would guess he would not do as well. At the same time, we have seen Manning master the long game and also do well in the short game. A lot of people talk about Brady's 2 minute drill and how he can take a team down the field. Has anyone seen Manning in a two-minute drill? The guy is amazing and personally, I cant help but think that he is an even better 2 minute QB than Brady. In fact a buddy made a comment towards the end of the 1st half of the Pats-Colts game when Manning started to do well with only a few minutes left before halftime... he said "Jeez, the Colts coaches should just tell Manning that there is only 2 minutes to go every time he touches the ball" ... the difference is that Brady has done his 2-minute drill bit in the SB and AFC championship games and that obviously gets more exposure than Manning's regular season, game by game by game 2 minute drill that is fantastic. That is NOT a knock against Brady. I'm just saying that Manning is just as good at it, if not better.
A lot of people refer to the fact that the Colts struggled against the Pats in the playoffs in the first 1/2 of Manning's career. I don't think I'm one to usually complain about the refs but what Ty Law and Co. did to the Colts receivers a few years ago without any penalties called was AMAZING! The Colts receivers were being mugged downfield, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was picked off a lot. Well duh! When your receivers are being pushed/shoved 20 yards downfield, of course they are not going to be able to run their routes! Again. NOT a knock against Brady. A knock against the Refs/Pats defense.
Next people bring up the subject of SB rings, and that Brady is the superior QB because he has the SB rings. Personally I NEVER understood, even BEFORE Manning/Brady debate came around. I don't understand how ONE player is better, because his TEAM won a game and another players TEAM didn't. Last time I checked, Football is a TEAM game. One player could be an all-star, but if the whole team is not up to a good enough level than that ONE all-star player is not going to get a ring. Example: Is Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino because Dilfer has a ring and Marino does not?
Put it this way. I *personally* believe if Manning and Brady were on completely different teams since 2000, Manning would have the 3 SB rings, Brady would have 0, and Manning would STILL be in next weeks Super Bowl. Thats my opinion.
Its seems now-a-days whenever you bring up Brady or Manning in a good way, it must mean that you are discrediting the other player.
-
No, but that's not what I said, was it? I was responding to the original poster's assertion that the Jets and the Bills were the only AFC East teams to improve "this past season," meaning the transition from '05 to '06.
The 2004 Pats were a flat out dominating team - the best of the dynasty era. They were a missing Dillon in Pittsburgh and a late-game brain fart in Miami away from 19-0.
The '05 team was lucky to make the playoffs. The D was decimated by injury and almost as bad as '02, and there simply wasn't a running game to speak of. I'd put this team slightly above the '02 team.
The '06 team, to me, was almost as good as the '03 team, but not quite.
Where'd ya come up with that innovate theory?
'01-'04: Three Super Bowls
'05-'06: No Super Bowls
No sh-- they're struggling more since '04 - "more" is a relative term, and most things pale in comparison to dominance.
By "contend for a title," I mean that prior to the season in question, the vast majority of reasonable people think that that a team has a very good chance to go to the Super Bowl. The Colts, to me, have been contending for titles since '03, even though they've only gotten as far as the AFCC game in two of those four years.
OK, so the Dolphins, Broncos, and Bengals were "contending" this past season. None of them made the post-season. Well hey, atleast your theory makes sense.
I will always have a big deal of respect for the Patriots as long as Brady and Belichick are roaming the sidelines and on the field, but the Patriots have won a large majority of games in the past 6 years decided by 7 points or less, and sooner or later they will begin to lose a few of those games. The Patriots use to OWN the Colts. Why have they lost to them 3 straight times now? and by an average of 10 pts/game? When was the last time the Patriots lost to the Jets before this season? I believe it was 2002.
-
Do I hype the Patriots all year long? No, but seriously, they were a third and three completion away from sitting on the ball, kicking the field goal and going to the Bowl to most likely beat the Bears. I just don't understand where all these Jets Bills threads taking over the East come from
Let's wait until the Bills can actually beat New England for once before giving them the division.
I don't think they will fade away but they are surely not what they were in 2003 or 2004. You say they were a "third and three completion away from sitting on the ball, kicking the field goal and going to the Bowl" ... well they were also a Philip Rivers interception away from not being in the AFC Championship at all. It goes both ways. The teams of '03 and '04, were a team you feared. They were almost guaranteed to make the SB. Its not like that now. It looks as if half the crowd is all over the Patsies Balls and the other half wants to live in an illusion.
P.S. The Bills were one non JP safety away from beating the Patsies.
-
Patriots in 2005: 10-6, eliminated in divisional round.
Patriots in 2006: 12-4, eliminated in championship round.
Why? Just 'cause?
I dont necessarily agree with the poster you were debating, but do you honestly think the Pats of the past 2 years are anywhere NEAR the Pats of 2003/2004? I still think the Pats are the team to beat in the AFC East and will continue to be a very good team, but its more than obvious to see that they have been struggling much more since 2004. Some say its because of Weiss, Crenell, or Branch or blah blah blah. It does'nt matter to me. All I know is that they have been sliding. Maybe they will jump back up to a 14-2, incredible team next year. I dont know.
I really don't see any indications that that will change any time soon. The Patriots are going to contend for a title virtually every year until the Belichick/Pioli/Brady triumvirate is broken up.Are you serious? And you know this how? Does 'contend for a title' to you mean that they simply make the playoffs? If so, then I would say that is a fair thing to say. Yet to me 'contend for a title' means your either in the AFC Championship game or Super Bowl, because those are the only games that can get you a title.
-
Again with your selective statistics. Did Brady bang your daughter or your mother or something and then run off right before he became a FUTURE HALL OF FAMER? Why do you have such an axe to grind with him? He's a winning QB who isnt defined by conventional methods. He's not the most gifted in any area but he's a winner and I'll take that any day over the Manning's, the Vick's, the Palmer's or the J.P Losmans of the world.
I know you were replying to AKC, but I figured I would throw my opinion in the mix. I really don't hate Tom Brady, although I do STRONGLY dislike him due to the fact that he plays on the Patriots. Yet, when I evaluate a player, I don't just look at what team he plays for. I look at the overall. Meaning, if Tom Brady was on the Cardinals instead, I wouldn't strongly dislike him because of the team, but I would still feel the same way of him as a player. I hope that made sense? Maybe not.
I see Tom Brady as a player who gets some credit he does not deserve and some people don't give Manning the credit he DOES deserve. Lets be honest ... how well does anyone think Brady would do in a long-rage full field type of offense? The type of offense Manning has mastered. Looking at his porous stats in the long passing game, I would guess he would not do as well. At the same time, we have seen Manning master the long game and also do well in the short game. A lot of people talk about Brady's 2 minute drill and how he can take a team down the field. Has anyone seen Manning in a two-minute drill? The guy is amazing and personally, I cant help but think that he is an even better 2 minute QB than Brady. In fact a buddy made a comment towards the end of the 1st half of the Pats-Colts game when Manning started to do well with only a few minutes left before halftime... he said "Jeez, the Colts coaches should just tell Manning that there is only 2 minutes to go every time he touches the ball" ... the difference is that Brady has done his 2-minute drill bit in the SB and AFC championship games and that obviously gets more exposure than Manning's regular season, game by game by game 2 minute drill that is fantastic. That is NOT a knock against Brady. I'm just saying that Manning is just as good at it, if not better.
A lot of people refer to the fact that the Colts struggled against the Pats in the playoffs in the first 1/2 of Manning's career. I don't think I'm one to usually complain about the refs but what Ty Law and Co. did to the Colts receivers a few years ago without any penalties called was AMAZING! The Colts receivers were being mugged downfield, and yet everyone was wondering why Manning was picked off a lot. Well duh! When your receivers are being pushed/shoved 20 yards downfield, of course they are not going to be able to run their routes! Again. NOT a knock against Brady. A knock against the Refs/Pats defense.
Next people bring up the subject of SB rings, and that Brady is the superior QB because he has the SB rings. Personally I NEVER understood, even BEFORE Manning/Brady debate came around. I don't understand how ONE player is better, because his TEAM won a game and another players TEAM didn't. Last time I checked, Football is a TEAM game. One player could be an all-star, but if the whole team is not up to a good enough level than that ONE all-star player is not going to get a ring. Example: Is Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino because Dilfer has a ring and Marino does not?
Put it this way. I *personally* believe if Manning and Brady were on completely different teams since 2000, Manning would have the 3 SB rings, Brady would have 0, and Manning would STILL be in next weeks Super Bowl. Thats my opinion.
Its seems now-a-days whenever you bring up Brady or Manning in a good way, it must mean that you are discrediting the other player. That is NOT the way it is for me. I just see it the way I posted above.
-
If we take our chances with franchising him yet again, and NOT getting a team to give up a couple first rounders, and were stuck with ANOTHER 1 year contract, we are going to be in even worse shape than now. Clements will be furious. We will be paying higher than we would have if we just signed him, and at the end of next season, he leaves anyway. Just straight up, SIGN him.
-
Yeah, but Grossman only needs to play Mediocre at best for the team to win.
Manning on the other hand, has to play like Peyton for that team to win.
Although I can guarantee that even with 2 broken thumbs and a shattered leg, your still going to see Peyton behind centre in the Super Bowl
I heard this concept on ESPN and I simply don't understand it. Why is everyone so high on the Bears? Grossman only needs to play Mediocre to win? I don't believe so. The Indianapolis Defense has been playing well in their past 3-4 games. Grossman is no Tom Brady, and Thomas Jones/Cedric Benson (in my opinion) are a step lower than Laurence Maroney and Corey Dillon. Not only that but the way the Patriots secondary played for the first 3/4 of the game Sunday was remarkable. I don't believe the Bears defense can do much better than the Patriots secondary, did for the most part Sunday. Add that to the fact that Manning has not been playing up to his caliber two out of the three playoff games and the Colts still won. The Baltimore defense was the #1 ranked defense in the league. Chicago was #5. Yet Manning only needed a 170 yard, 0 TD and 2 INT game to beat Baltimore by 9 points. During the regular season Baltimore's offense was nearly equal with Chicago's in terms of yards (Chi had about 8 more yds/per game). Baltimore had a better 3rd down%. Baltimore had a better 4th down%. Baltimore had less penalties than Chicago's offense, and Baltimore had a better avg time of possession per game than Chicago's. Both teams had equal yds/per play. I guess my point is that I believe Baltimore's offense is on the same level, if not BETTER than Chicago's offense and Indianapolis already beat Baltimore by 9 points ... and that was with an experienced playoff QB.
-
Theres always one. Thanks Ray.
Yeah its always nice when people act like asses huh?
Joe McKnight (No. 1 HS RB)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Are you sure? I heard that he visited Bowden and WVU, but he also had visited Alabama within the past couple of weeks also.
edit: looks like your right