If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   NFL Power Rankings, Week 6 - The "now we're just trolling" edition   (espn.go.com) divider line 407
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7233 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Oct 2011 at 1:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-11 03:24:47 PM

Super Chronic: Two of them were completely pulled out of their asses.


i trust you are counting the referees giving themn the game last week vs Arizona in that?


like i said the other day in the NFL thread. He tripped. He didn't pull a Maurince Jones Drew (circa 2009 or so) and dive inbounds just short of the goal line so his team could go victory formation and spin the clock; he tripped. and even then he was trying to crawl forwards. god that sucked ass.
 
2011-10-11 03:26:29 PM

FirstNationalBastard: gilgigamesh: The Lions are 4? The fark?

I mean I know their the Lions and all, but they are unbeaten.

They're not the Patriots. Therefore, they're not worthy.


Even as a Pats fan I think the Lions should be number two.

I'm enjoying the Lions this year, and I'm happy for the city of Detroit.

If the Lions make the playoffs and the Pats make their annual first round exit, I'll be all over their bandwagon.
 
2011-10-11 03:27:29 PM

Super Chronic: NaziKamikaze: If Cam has the second-most touchdowns, then 1 person is ahead of him. And yet, look at that, there are two people ahead of him. It doesn't matter that Wells and AP are tied for first, there are two players with more rushing touchdowns than Cam Newton, ergo he has the third-most rushing touchdowns.

He does have the second most tds.

How many are the most?
How many are second most?

If you answer 6 and 6, you fail at basic math.

(1) 6 are the most.
(2) There is no second most.
Extra credit: 5 is the third most.

/asinine conversation


I would say Cam has the second most rushing touchdowns and is ranked third among players for rushing touchdowns.
 
2011-10-11 03:27:38 PM

rickythepenguin: i trust you are counting the referees giving themn the game last week vs Arizona in that?


In reality, he gave himself up. If falling down on the ground, putting the ball on the ground, and trotting toward the huddle isn't giving yourself up, I'm not sure what is.

And if you want to claim he was tripped, then he's down by contact.

In any case, he was down. Arizona has to worry about the sh*t QB they just mortgaged the farm to buy instead of calls.
 
2011-10-11 03:27:59 PM

Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.


Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.

/sorry, Rwa2play. Not trying to pick on you specifically
 
2011-10-11 03:32:59 PM

The other graph showing strength of victory. So if you're beating bad teams, you're on the left. If you're beating good teams, you're on the right.

i27.photobucket.com

Poor IND, STL, & MIA can't get out of their corner. :(

Link to less-squished version (new window)
 
2011-10-11 03:33:03 PM

rickythepenguin: Super Chronic: Two of them were completely pulled out of their asses.

i trust you are counting the referees giving themn the game last week vs Arizona in that?


like i said the other day in the NFL thread. He tripped. He didn't pull a Maurince Jones Drew (circa 2009 or so) and dive inbounds just short of the goal line so his team could go victory formation and spin the clock; he tripped. and even then he was trying to crawl forwards. god that sucked ass.


Yep, I was.

Although I could rationally go either way with it. I think it was a fumble. I've never seen a player "surrender" like that, absent (i) an effort to kill the clock, (ii) a QB scramble or (iii) a touchback, and it strains credulity to think he just voluntarily gave up. (And if he did voluntarily give up, then WTF - I can only imagine how Coughlin would deal with that kind of pussy play.) But on the other hand, if they had made the correct call, I would have considered it rotten luck against the Giants -- a loss resulting from a dumb rookie brain fart. And why should Arizona benefit from that? Either way, somebody's pulling a victory out of their ass, and I can hardly decry the injustice that it happened to be the Giants.

Also, I thought that was Brian Westbrook who went down at the 1. Or did MJD do it too?
 
2011-10-11 03:33:14 PM

IAmRight: If falling down on the ground, putting the ball on the ground, and trotting toward the huddle isn't giving yourself up, I'm not sure what is.



he tripped and fell on his own feet, thought he was playing college rules, semi drops/spikes the ball, and then runs back. live ball.

basically teh kissin gcousin to Plaxico's "spike the ball after a catch" play in his rookie year. he thought he was playing college rules.
 
2011-10-11 03:37:19 PM

Quasar: I would say Cam has the second most rushing touchdowns and is ranked third among players for rushing touchdowns.


Thank God you're here.

/asinine conversation
 
2011-10-11 03:39:33 PM

Super Chronic: strains credulity to think he just voluntarily gave up.



and yeah, that's the biggest argument no one has made about that play. THE GIANTS WERE DOWN BY 3, WITH 3 MINUTES LEFT. why would a player possibly go down in that situation?

Granted there were 3 cardinals there, but....no. come on man.

fark it. i need to be zen about and let it go.
 
2011-10-11 03:42:18 PM

Super Chronic: Also, I thought that was Brian Westbrook who went down at the 1. Or did MJD do it too?



i was just talking about this with someone (was it you?) sunday.....I absolutely would swear on a stack of bibles Mojo did it; i heard him on Rome or Dan Patrick a few days later apologize to his fantasy owners after that play. he said something like "i know y'all wanted six, but I wanted victory formation!"

i frankly don't recall Westbrook doing it; you see that kind of play maybe 1-2 twice a year.

positive Mojo did it.
 
2011-10-11 03:45:49 PM

IAmRight: Super Chronic: They don't have the same record.

I knew I should've looked it up.

/how do the Giants have three wins?


I suspect Brandon Jacobs is fairly useful on third downs.
 
2011-10-11 03:46:49 PM

MmmCrime: Redskins are going to drop about 10 positions after sunday

/realistic redskins fan


You shut your whore mouth.

Just kidding. Can't be a Skins fan without being petrified of a 1-4 team.
 
2011-10-11 03:47:36 PM

rickythepenguin: Super Chronic: Also, I thought that was Brian Westbrook who went down at the 1. Or did MJD do it too?


i was just talking about this with someone (was it you?) sunday.....I absolutely would swear on a stack of bibles Mojo did it; i heard him on Rome or Dan Patrick a few days later apologize to his fantasy owners after that play. he said something like "i know y'all wanted six, but I wanted victory formation!"

i frankly don't recall Westbrook doing it; you see that kind of play maybe 1-2 twice a year.

positive Mojo did it.


Seems we're both right (two new windows).
 
2011-10-11 03:47:43 PM

rickythepenguin: Super Chronic: Also, I thought that was Brian Westbrook who went down at the 1. Or did MJD do it too?


i was just talking about this with someone (was it you?) sunday.....I absolutely would swear on a stack of bibles Mojo did it; i heard him on Rome or Dan Patrick a few days later apologize to his fantasy owners after that play. he said something like "i know y'all wanted six, but I wanted victory formation!"

i frankly don't recall Westbrook doing it; you see that kind of play maybe 1-2 twice a year.

positive Mojo did it.


Westbrook did it against the Cowboys one season. The Eagles hadn't been able to stop the Cowboys all day, and instead of scoring and giving Dallas the ball with time left, he just kneeled on the 1. I'm sure somebody had an aneurysm about that, but I wasn't playing fantasy that year.
 
2011-10-11 03:47:53 PM
 
2011-10-11 03:48:40 PM

rickythepenguin: Super Chronic: Also, I thought that was Brian Westbrook who went down at the 1. Or did MJD do it too?


i was just talking about this with someone (was it you?) sunday.....I absolutely would swear on a stack of bibles Mojo did it; i heard him on Rome or Dan Patrick a few days later apologize to his fantasy owners after that play. he said something like "i know y'all wanted six, but I wanted victory formation!"

i frankly don't recall Westbrook doing it; you see that kind of play maybe 1-2 twice a year.

positive Mojo did it.


They both did it. Although when Westbrook did, he had a lineman (I want to say Runyan) behind him yelling to get down.
 
2011-10-11 03:49:40 PM
The Lions will be in the Super Bowl next year. By next year, I mean after the 2012 season.

Book it!
 
2011-10-11 03:50:34 PM

Super Chronic: Seems we're both right (two new windows).


Of course, now that I look at the two videos, although they both could have scored easily, they were down by contact with no need to invoke the Cruz Rule.
 
2011-10-11 03:54:47 PM

nunoyo: Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.


^This^

People don't seem to realize how damn good you have to play to be the WORST player on an NFL team.
 
2011-10-11 03:58:21 PM

Treygreen13: Tricksy Seahawks... trying to sneak up on the NFL. They won't fool Smeeeeagol.



I LOL'd.
 
2011-10-11 03:58:21 PM

nunoyo: Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.

/sorry, Rwa2play. Not trying to pick on you specifically


I have this same feeling. You should also mention that those rookies work full time on being NFL players and are closer to their physical prime. I don't know about the "ever" comment, maybe before the NFL paid enough to survive on and they only got players who couldn't get real jobs.
 
2011-10-11 03:58:42 PM

snowshovel: highbrow45: nunoyo: Overfiend: highbrow45: Lions should be #2. #1 after they beat the Packers on Thanksgiving.

Problematic games for the Lions are @New Orleans and @Green Bay. Other than that... they've got the 49ers and Atlanta in Detroit, they're on the road against Denver and Chicago then they've got Carolina at home. Those are all wins.

Based on the game last night, I don't see the "Detroit at Chicago" as a locked win for Detroit. Chicago, being the trainwreck that they are, probably doesn't commit all those false start penalties away from the dome.

Detroit is a great team built for domed weather. I wouldn't be surprised if they will all of their games at home. Visiting Chicago in November, and visiting Green Bay in January(!!!) will probably be troublesome.


Ok, let's pretent that the Lions can't practice outside in Michigan to prepare for outdoor games in Chicago and Green Bay. That's still just two games. Even if they lose @New Orleans and @Oakland too, beat Denver on the road and win out at home they're 12-4.
 
2011-10-11 03:59:03 PM

Super Chronic: Rwa2play: Super Chronic: Eli Manning had been so steady, with just two interceptions in four games, and then he threw three in a meltdown against Seattle. (Fox)

That's not exactly fair. One was on a pass where the receiver slipped and fell, tipping the ball into a defender's hands; another was in desperation/garbage time.

Still, there do seem to be a number of apologists willing to discount those two interceptions and take his 420 yards and 3 TDs at face value, which also isn't fair. If the INTs were improbable, then so were about 100 of the yards on two insane catches; and another 30 or so came in the aforementioned garbage time. On balance he had a very solid, but not great, game that the team would have won if it had any semblance of a running game.

I mean, the play sequence speaks for itself: most teams, when they get to the opponent's 10 with under 2 minutes remaining and a 5-point deficit, pound it in and kill the clock. The Giants couldn't because their running game sucked, and that's how the INT happened.

That loss was in...ex...cusable. Sorry, the farking Seahawks?! Really?!?!?! LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

UGH! I hated that game, just another reason why Gilbride should be canned.

Also not true. This weekend we learned that the Giants are not as good as people thought, but also that the Seahawks are not as bad as people thought. They're not world-beaters by any stretch, but their run defense is legit, they have dangerous special teams*, they have some offensive skill-position weapons and their line is improving. Not contenders, but not "suck for Luck" candidates either.

*week 1 breakdown notwithstanding


Sorry, but I'm not buying that either. Giants *still* could've put that game away at a number of points. The one drawback of the Giants Def. scheme is that they keep blitzing, even when they're getting ripped apart. Had they pulled back to a Cover 2 or Cover 1 scheme, they could've contained Seattle's no huddle offense. It's not like Seattle's got Megatron as one of their wideouts.
 
2011-10-11 03:59:48 PM

This Looks Fun: Quasar: I would say Cam has the second most rushing touchdowns and is ranked third among players for rushing touchdowns.

Thank God you're here.

/asinine conversation


It's an incredibly stupid conversation and whoever is making the argument that he should be ranked second is retarded. His number is the second highest but he himself is behind two other people. QED
 
2011-10-11 04:00:32 PM

Iceberg659: nunoyo: Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.

^This^

People don't seem to realize how damn good you have to play to be the WORST player on an NFL team.


Back when Cinci was terrible, a brother of a woman I knew was a back up/special teams guy on them. I always said he was the worst player on the worst team. She said "he is still in the NFL" he had an 8 year career.
 
2011-10-11 04:01:11 PM

Iceberg659: People don't seem to realize how damn good you have to play to be the WORST player on an NFL team.



absolutely....what percentage of high school football "studs" go on to play NCAA football? a miniscule percentage.

of that pool, there are what, 150+ NCAA football programs? the draft is 7 rounds, 32 teams. so between the draft and then undrafted FA signings, roughly 300 players get invited to each season's summer camps. many will be cut; the proverbial "camp bodies".

the talent gulf between the NCAA's BCS champion and the worst NFL team is immense.

as the cliche goes, if LSU/Bama played, I don't know, the Colts 10 times, yeah, perhaps once they win. perhaps. But the overwhelming majority of the time, any pro team beats any college team. The talent gulf is too vast.

i mean, every pro team is basically an All-Star team of college players. duhhhhhh. think about it.
 
2011-10-11 04:04:07 PM
Did anyone notice that the url contains "PatsSuck?"

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2011/week/6?2011patssuck
 
2011-10-11 04:04:45 PM

Shrugging Atlas: I'm absolutely in. Being a Rams fan, you can be certain there is no limit to the pain I'm willing to endure, and there is simply no threshold to the amount of shame I can feel....so you can be sure I'll stick with the wager. Too bad the little kids at St. Jude have to pin their hopes on the Rams.



Welcome to the club.

/SEAHAWKS!!!!!!
 
2011-10-11 04:05:08 PM

nunoyo: Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.

/sorry, Rwa2play. Not trying to pick on you specifically


Nah, no worries friend. :)

Just frickin' pissed that the Giants lost to a team they should've handled easily. I'm not giving credit to a team that played crap games v. the 49ers and Cards.
 
2011-10-11 04:06:11 PM

Neeek: NaziKamikaze:
He does have the second most tds.

How many are the most?
How many are second most?

If you answer 6 and 6, you fail at basic math.

It's not a race, it's a simple comparison of numbers. Jumping ranks does nothing. I totally agree two people have more than Cam, there is no doubt. But he still has the second most tds for rushing in the league.

Which is what i was responding to in the first place, jackass.


You are aware that you are the only person who does stats like that, right? Every stat site does it exactly how you claim is wrong. If two people are tied for first, there is no second.


Obviously not if you read the article, which I was responding to criticism of the author for using that method. I prefer it.
 
2011-10-11 04:06:39 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: a brother of a woman I knew was a back up/special teams guy on them.



in college (northern arizona), i had a class with assigned study groups, and one of the guys in my study group, we had this semester long project, and he was like "sorry, in April, i'll be gone for a week" or whatever.

turns out he was invited to the NFL Combine.

/but wasn't drafted
 
2011-10-11 04:07:31 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: I have this same feeling. You should also mention that those rookies work full time on being NFL players and are closer to their physical prime. I don't know about the "ever" comment, maybe before the NFL paid enough to survive on and they only got players who couldn't get real jobs.


Fair enough, I don't know enough to say about the NFL's talent level in the 20's, 30's, etc. By "ever" I more meant that if the best college team played the worst NFL team 100 times, the NFL team would win 100 times.
 
2011-10-11 04:08:19 PM

Super Chronic: NaziKamikaze: If Cam has the second-most touchdowns, then 1 person is ahead of him. And yet, look at that, there are two people ahead of him. It doesn't matter that Wells and AP are tied for first, there are two players with more rushing touchdowns than Cam Newton, ergo he has the third-most rushing touchdowns.

He does have the second most tds.

How many are the most?
How many are second most?

If you answer 6 and 6, you fail at basic math.

(1) 6 are the most.
(2) There is no second most.
Extra credit: 5 is the third most.

/asinine conversation


Wow, that is so god Damn stupid.
 
2011-10-11 04:10:10 PM

Rwa2play: Nah, no worries friend. :)

Just frickin' pissed that the Giants lost to a team they should've handled easily. I'm not giving credit to a team that played crap games v. the 49ers and Cards.


Word. And I'm a Saints fan, so you don't to tell me about being frustrated for losing to the Seahawks. I got pulled over for speeding a few hours after that game, still had my jersey on, and the cop let me off because "you've had a rough enough day." Glad not to get a ticket, but somehow that made it even worse.
 
2011-10-11 04:11:36 PM

nunoyo: Rwa2play: LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

Pet peeve: I know it's often a joke, but a lot of times it's not, and it's always annoying: no, no college team could beat any NFL team. Take the best college team of recent memory. I don't care, pick any recent national champion. Put them against the 0-16 Lions a few years ago. The Lions would slaughter them.

The BEST players from that college team get drafted, and get to be rookies. The rest of them are not good enough for the NFL. Your college team is at absolute best a bunch of young, undersized, inexperienced rookies who have never devoted even close the same amount of time to football as the NFL players. There's no NFL team so bad that a college team could beat them. At all. Ever.

/sorry, Rwa2play. Not trying to pick on you specifically


I mean, let's just look at what many call the college team stacked with the most NFL talent in our lifetime (new window). I suppose a reunion of that team, about 5-7 years later, could do a little damage against a terrible NFL team. Ed Reed, Andre Johnson, Jeremy Shockey, Clinton Portis, Jonathan Vilma and Philip Buchanon might be able to make some plays. Even then, their QB is a guy who never made it past second string in the NFL and their offensive line has no one besides Bryant McKinnie. And there's also the fact that not all of them were NFL-ready, or even at their college peak, in 2001 -- Johnson, for example, was an underclassman who didn't even make All Big East that year. So there's no way this group, in 2001, comes close to beating any NFL team.
 
2011-10-11 04:14:17 PM

Di Atribe: The other graph showing strength of victory. So if you're beating bad teams, you're on the left. If you're beating good teams, you're on the right.

[i27.photobucket.com image 640x438]

Poor IND, STL, & MIA can't get out of their corner. :(

Link to less-squished version (new window)


Without getting too technical, this is a very bad metric for success. The data you are using is not independent. To truly show strength of victory, you need to subtract off the inverse of your own record from the total of your opponents' records.

The easiest explanation for this is to look at the Patriots' 16-0 year or the Lions' 0-16 year. If you add up the Patriots' opponents for the year (doubling the division opponents cause they played them twice) the schedule is going to be artificially weak because they all had to play the Patriots. By subtracting off the 16 losses they had, you get a true level of their strength, independent of their games against the Patriots.

The opposite holds true for the 0-16 Lions. Their schedule appears artificially strong because everyone they played got a free win from them, so their total has 16 more wins than they deserve.

It involves a bit more math to figure out, but in the end, is much more accurate.
 
2011-10-11 04:18:14 PM

nunoyo: And I'm a Saints fan, so you don't to tell me about being frustrated for losing to the Seahawks. I got pulled over for speeding a few hours after that game, still had my jersey on, and the cop let me off because "you've had a rough enough day.



i made some money on that game. as....robsul82 (i think) can attest to, i nailed that upset. it was so obvious. Saints as I recall hadn't done well in the West Coast time zone (scraped a win vs Arizona, I think lost to he 49ers, and had some other shiat game in teh time zone....but most of all, they'd had some cheap wins vs bad or rookie QBs.

the line was stupid, like 6.5 or some shiat.

i vaguely recall looking at common opponents too; the Saints had just not distinguished themselves on a common opponetns metric.

id din't make a ton of money but i got a little bit paid on that game. that was so obvious. if you didn't see that one coming, you weren't paying attention.
 
2011-10-11 04:20:31 PM

rickythepenguin: if you didn't see that one coming, you weren't paying attention you might be Roman Harper.

 
2011-10-11 04:22:59 PM

nunoyo: You're the jerk... jerk: I have this same feeling. You should also mention that those rookies work full time on being NFL players and are closer to their physical prime. I don't know about the "ever" comment, maybe before the NFL paid enough to survive on and they only got players who couldn't get real jobs.

Fair enough, I don't know enough to say about the NFL's talent level in the 20's, 30's, etc. By "ever" I more meant that if the best college team played the worst NFL team 100 times, the NFL team would win 100 times.


Notre Dame had the best team, including the pros, at a few points (I want to say 20s and 40s, but I could be misremembering). Modernly, from the 50s on, there is no contest. I'd argue that the worst CFL and worst XFL teams could handily beat the snot out of any college team.
 
2011-10-11 04:24:30 PM

abmoraz: Without getting too technical, this is a very bad metric for success. The data you are using is not independent. To truly show strength of victory, you need to subtract off the inverse of your own record from the total of your opponents' records.


For teams on the same horizontal line (or roughly), that effect cancels out, both for this and for strength-of-schedule (a chart of which I will post in about an hour once I'm home).
 
2011-10-11 04:27:24 PM

Quasar: It's an incredibly stupid conversation and whoever is making the argument that he should be ranked second is retarded. His number is the second highest but he himself is behind two other people. QED


I would keep the facts and ditch the insult. It dilutes an otherwise perfect assessment.
 
2011-10-11 04:28:33 PM

punishmentforshoplifting: MmmCrime: Redskins are going to drop about 10 positions after sunday

/realistic redskins fan

You shut your whore mouth.

Just kidding. Can't be a Skins fan without being petrified of a 1-4 team.


1 and 4? More like 3 and 13
 
2011-10-11 04:30:23 PM

abmoraz: It involves a bit more math to figure out, but in the end, is much more accurate.


RminusQ makes the maths around here. I just report it.

rickythepenguin: huh. you appear to be the one Rams fan on fark!

Ooooh that reminds me! I need to update the epic pie chart of fark nfl friendliness and happies!
 
2011-10-11 04:32:55 PM

Super Chronic: f you didn't see that one coming, you weren't paying attention you might be Roman Harper.



i calle dout robsul82 as, i'm not sure if it was him but i think so.....anyways, a lot of national pundits after the fact were like, "LOL WELL, UHH...YEAH, I KINDA HAD A WEIRD FEELING SEATTLE MIGHT WIN THIS ONE, BUT I DDINT SAY ANYTHING, BUT....YEAH I KINDA KNEW THEY'D WIN...."

and when i said i picke dthe upset, some people were like, "sure ya did, bandwagon mcgee".

so what i did for weeks afterwards was I posted the link to my breakdown, this huge wall of text. which was obviously written beofreo the game. and every time i posted it someone, who may or may not be broham, would get mad at me for the wall of text.
 
2011-10-11 04:32:56 PM
OLIVE
 
2011-10-11 04:37:26 PM

This Looks Fun: I would keep the facts and ditch the insult. It dilutes an otherwise perfect assessment.


But then this would not be the Fark I know and love.
 
2011-10-11 04:37:31 PM

rickythepenguin: and every time i posted it someone, who may or may not be broham, would get mad at me for the wall of text.


You reposted the same ginormous thing in like six different threads after the game! lol At least when I reference nailing XLIV, it was a Super Bowl and it's differently worded every time, heh.
 
2011-10-11 04:39:17 PM
OLIVE:Fark football threads::ARMBAR:Fark wrestling threads

/should be, anyway
 
2011-10-11 04:39:22 PM

robsul82: You reposted the same ginormous thing in like six different threads after the game! lol


ha, it was you!

it was the smae since, as i said above, i had to put a timestamp on when i wrote that. like i said, some people called bandwagon B.S. on my claim.

the link proved i called my shot babe ruth style.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report