By bosox [278767]
What a weird day in the NFL. I really thought Detroit would have some pride and beat the lowly Vikings, yet they get blown out and end any chance at a playoff berth. And the Giants... what can you say about them? The absolute most inconsistent team in the NFL. God knows why they can't ever get themselves together and string a few wins in a row to maybe give themselves a first round bye... we all know they have the talent to. And finally a nice win for Cowboys fans....
but what I'm really wondering is... SF struggled to stop St. Louis, yet the Patriots blew them out Now, normally I understand "any given Sunday" about the NFL, but I was under the impression the NFC was far and away the better conference, and that SF may be the best team in that conference (or at least interchangeable in the top 3 spots). Interesting.
agree with all that, besides a nice win for dallas. We still had many problems and if it wasnt for vick being out it most likely would have been a win for eagle fans.
But god i loved watching the giants game until they took it off air....i was f**king dying from laughter.
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
Well, let me put that in perspective: good win by Cowboys' standards at least it was against a divisional opponent, let's not get carried away with the particulars concerning whether or not their starting QB was injured. Baby steps.
Also, no sense in "dying from laughter" to see the Giants playing inconsistent. Where have you been the past, oh, four years? All the Giants do is win 9-10 games a year, lose to teams they shouldn't, but then win Super Bowls. So really, what is difference and what is funny about that?
You ready for this upcoming Sunday bosox? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near naive enough to think the colts should come out with a victory, but it'll be a good gauge as to how tough we really are!
By bosox [278767]
Well, let me put that in perspective: good win by Cowboys' standards at least it was against a divisional opponent, let's not get carried away with the particulars concerning whether or not their starting QB was injured. Baby steps.
Also, no sense in "dying from laughter" to see the Giants playing inconsistent. Where have you been the past, oh, four years? All the Giants do is win 9-10 games a year, lose to teams they shouldn't, but then win Super Bowls. So really, what is difference and what is funny about that?
i guess i can take baby steps with them.
because manning was doing absolutely terrible. he had himself a bad day even in romo standards. That doesnt happen quite as often, and rarely against a team like bengals.
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
But god i loved watching the giants game until they took it off air....i was f**king dying from laughter.
Oh you're f**king laughing huh....lol....
I chuckle knowing Romo has more turnovers than your local supermarket, that the Cowboys haven't won a Superbowl since the 90s, and the Giants have beaten Bosox's beloved Patriots twice in the Superbowl.
Why am I always busy every time this thread gets active? Now I'll say something and nobody will say anything until Bosox plays the Lex to my Clark and tries to refute everything I say....
Anyways.... Strange day today....
@ Luke- Vick being gone did nothing different in my opinion, but naturally an argument can be made otherwise. Vick has been second to only Romo in turnovers so saying he would have made a difference is weak when turnovers changed the game for us.
@ El- Don't let Luke get you too roweled up. Just like Bo has been saying, and just like you know already, the Giants are the BIGGEST hot and cold team ever BUT are hot when it matters. Ya'll HAVE played like crap lately honestly, but that means f**k all because ya'll played like crap most of last year and what stadium has the newest Lombardi on display?
@ Chit- That game was retarded. It was like both teams wanted the tie. They both tried JUST hard enough to be close, but no harder. Seamed like the Cowboys were playing the Cowboys tbh...
@ Spazzy- Pats will crush your Colts....
@ Bosox- Yes, your team blew out the Rams and now the Rams tied the Niners. Ok. And? I know that makes you want to jump for joy and throw a quarter into the "Brady's cock" riding machine they have outside your local grocer, but let's get real. Yeah, the Pats beat 1 team that TIED the Niners, but the Niners beat 2 of the 3 teams that beat the Pats. Teams are not judged by who their opponents beat, they are judged but who they beat or couldn't. Lets not forget that a fumble in the red zone changed your game today... The Pats barely beat a team they stomped a few weeks befor... shit changes and shit happens. Don't start going crazy with confidence like you did last year, it's not a side of you ANY of us like....
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
By bosox [278767]
Lol I thought according to you, Romo standards would be pretty damn good.
they are, but as i clearly stated his bad days.....which im sure we can all agree to can be pretty damn bad.
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
Lol Crow, you are now acting worse than Luke with that response. Notice how You, once again, cannot talk about the Patriots without somehow dragging all your BS into it. I'm not sure exactly what bone you have, other than your team sucks and has sucked for 15+ years and you're just a bitter fan of a mostly shitty team. That's all I can gather from anything you now post anymore on this thread. But perhaps you don't understand that I'm not a blind homer, and I realize the Patriots are not a very scary team this season, despite the fact we're 6-3, and that I now look at wins differently and judge them against what the rest of the league is doing. I know it's not 2004, the Pats are now going 34-4 over a two year stretch with two Super Bowls, it's not 2007 and we're not making a joke of the regular season. I get that. I also never said the Rams were any good, but I do believe the NFC is the better conference, and I think it's worth taking note of that the Patriots destroyed a team that gave arguably the best team in football a damn good run for their money. What do you want me to do? You want me to pretend the Patriots are an unstoppable force? I'm being realistic.
And sorry but screw you and your bitterness if I was confident about my 13-3 Patriots making a trip to the Super Bowl again last season. If that upsets you than perhaps you should just stick to posting on Dallas Cowboys fan pages because clearly you cannot even handle having any conversations about the NFL. Damn Crow, I think I just lost a lot of respect for you in terms of a fan with that last post, and that's depressing.
Calm down buddy, just wanted to see what kind of reaction I'd get out of you just for shits and giggles. Might have been a little over the top cause of the brew, but just taking some jabs lol.
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
ahhh, you almost had me bosox. But not this time, i dont have time or energy as of late.
But we will have to go at it again cause i quite enjoy your useless ranting about how good brady is.
even tho we all know manning is better
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
ahhh, you almost had me bosox. But not this time, i dont have time or energy as of late.
But we will have to go at it again cause i quite enjoy your useless ranting about how good brady is.
even tho we all know manning is better
As a Brit, even I know Brady is miles ahead of Romo. I don't get why people rate Romo highly, from what I've seen (dunno about past seasons so I may be wrong) he seems awful. I hear alot about Manning (presume you mean Peyton) but I haven't seen a Broncos game on TV here, nor did I see any Colts games last year, and well, he may rack up the stats, but in the future, it'll be the one with the rings remembered, which is Brady, and funnily enough, his little brother.
AFC
Houston
Denver
New England
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
NFC
Atlanta
San Francisco
Green Bay
Chicago
New York
As much as I give Spazzy shit about the Colts, I think an argument could be made to put the Colts in the top 5. Granted their schedule hasn't exactly been that difficult, they have a 4 game win streak going and have beaten the Packers and Vikings. Who they would replace is hard to say, but the coming weeks should tell.
NFC is getting tougher to call these days with the Giants appearing to be in a slump and the "top dogs" have been losing, or tieing, to some mediocre teams. I think Kaepernick just showed the Niners that Alex Smiths "game manager" style is more suited for them than they thought, Atlanta finally lost and appear to need a run game imo, and the Packers have been hit and miss and also need a run game.
With that said, call me crazy but...
AFC
Houston
Denver
Baltimore
New England
Pittsburgh/Indy
NFC
San Fran
Atlanta
Chicago
Green Bay
Seattle/NY
Add to that, the Saints look to be rebounding quite well and could see themselves back in the top 5 befor too long in my opinion.
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
Well, I still am holding my belief that the AFC is, in general, a mess, so it's hard to really gauge any wins against most teams. Although this Colts/Pats game is going to be pretty big for the AFC playoff picture, and Roethlisberger going down might change things too.
As for the NFC, I just think they're all a bunch of good teams so it's hard for any to be consistent. Like I think if Detroit or NO were in the AFC they'd easily be over .500. It's hard for me to put SF as number 1, as they've lost or tied to a few chump teams this year, but Atlanta just doesn't scare me and they just lost but... I guess going forward, ATL is probably the scariest team in the NFC, but honestly Green Bay could be creeping back into the discussion. I'm just nto sold on Chicago, and that game against Houston proved it. Their defense held up better than I thought, but I wonder how much of that was just due to the fact they were playing in pouring rain on a muddy grass field notorious for bad conditions. I also don't think Cutler going down changed much, as the Bears were just not going to be scoring much either way; Cutler sucks. So I think Houston is number 1 in the league, and after that there's a bunch of teams that could all be argued to be number 2-5
By bosox [278767]
Well, I still am holding my belief that the AFC is, in general, a mess, so it's hard to really gauge any wins against most teams. Although this Colts/Pats game is going to be pretty big for the AFC playoff picture, and Roethlisberger going down might change things too.
As for the NFC, I just think they're all a bunch of good teams so it's hard for any to be consistent. Like I think if Detroit or NO were in the AFC they'd easily be over .500. It's hard for me to put SF as number 1, as they've lost or tied to a few chump teams this year, but Atlanta just doesn't scare me and they just lost but... I guess going forward, ATL is probably the scariest team in the NFC, but honestly Green Bay could be creeping back into the discussion. I'm just nto sold on Chicago, and that game against Houston proved it. Their defense held up better than I thought, but I wonder how much of that was just due to the fact they were playing in pouring rain on a muddy grass field notorious for bad conditions. I also don't think Cutler going down changed much, as the Bears were just not going to be scoring much either way; Cutler sucks. So I think Houston is number 1 in the league, and after that there's a bunch of teams that could all be argued to be number 2-5
Pretty much agree. Houston seams to be the top dog, and behind them the next 4-5 teams are interchangeable. I just don't see Atlanta as that scary though. Their offense seams 1 dimensional to me. Put them up against a talented pass D and they may still squeak out a win, but it won't be pretty. Chicago I think stays up there not because of Cutler, or even Forte for that matter, but that defense just seams to be able to create turnovers like no other this year. Yeah, they just lost to the top dog, but the top dog are also on top with the least turnovers this year when we have seen a lot of defensive TD's and points scored off of turnovers.
I'm also still kinda curious how much better the Texans D would be is Cushing was still around. I'm still pissed Garrett sabotaged Wade and took his job.
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
Atlanta is definitely not very scary, but even if their passing game was limited they still have Turner, and while he's not having as dominant a year as he's had in the past, he's still having a good season and is still dangerous. Plus, their defense isn't bad either. They're definitely beatable, and if they end up with a 1 or 2 seed in the playoffs they may still have to face the likes of Seattle or Green Bay in their fist game, which could spell a big upset for them early, once again. But Chicago.... their defense is great, and it can and will win them games, and it will probably carry them deep this year, but when it comes down to it you still need a great QB to really achieve anything. Maybe Chicago is about to become the Baltimore of the AFC over the past 5 years, always pushing for the conference championship game but never winning it and falling short. Because I think if Chicago had to go through Green Bay, San Francisco and maybe even Atlanta, I don't see them coming out of their conference. But I think Chicago could easily beat Tampa, Seattle, Minnesota or New Orleans if they end up matching up against any of those teams in the playoffs, and if they get a first round bye they could easily get to the NFC game... but, like I said, if they match up against one of those other teams I named, I think they lose.
I honestly don't know if the Texans would be much better with Cushing... I mean, it's not as if they could really be playing THAT much better on D. Maybe he could have made an impact in the GB game where they got smoked for their only loss, but it's not as if Cushing was going to have the same impact that Watt is having, or that a ball hawking safety or shutdown corner would have. Cushing was just a very solid and consistent player, but was never really a huge threat to make a big play, he was just a sure bet to not screw up and to every now and then come through with a turnover or sack. Not irreplaceable, and the HOU defense is good enough that they don't need to rely on that. Remember, they're not the Patriots you put Cushing on NE and he'd make all the difference in the world, but for the Texans, he was just one of many on that team that was highly talented.
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
ahhh, you almost had me bosox. But not this time, i dont have time or energy as of late.
But we will have to go at it again cause i quite enjoy your useless ranting about how good brady is.
even tho we all know manning is better
As a Brit, even I know Brady is miles ahead of Romo. I don't get why people rate Romo highly, from what I've seen (dunno about past seasons so I may be wrong) he seems awful. I hear alot about Manning (presume you mean Peyton) but I haven't seen a Broncos game on TV here, nor did I see any Colts games last year, and well, he may rack up the stats, but in the future, it'll be the one with the rings remembered, which is Brady, and funnily enough, his little brother.
i have never said romo is better then brady, so i have no clue where you going with this. I have said romo is good, never said he is elite...if you look at the stats im not lying. (for the anti-romo group, im not judging just by this year)
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
By bosox [278767]
Luke, it seems for the past page only you and Crow are talking about how good Brady is... but he is a damn good QB, so I guess you picked a good one
where have i said he was good? i said i love hearing YOUR rants about how good he is.
there's right and there's wrong, you gotta do one or the other If you do the one and your living you do the other you might be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat
What more tests do we need to see what Seattle is? They're 5-0 at home and 1-4 on the road, like they have been for years. If they're at home, then they an usually have their way on defense (am I'm starting to think it has become just as much home cooking with the refs as it is any "noise" factor), but you put them on the road and they probably will lose. I'd say Chicago will tear apart Wilson and the rest of the offense, but they may be able to get to Cutler anyways (or whoever is playing at that time, if Cutler is still out) because Cutler sucks.
Looks like it will all come down to the Chicago D with Campbell getting the start this week. I don't see Campbell carrying that team and think it'll be all Forte's rungame and dumpoffs. I'm also interested to see what Foles will look like with a week of first team reps and a full start. He looked pretty good in preseason. If he looks good and doesn't fall into the turnover slope Vick was on, and if Reid would actually call some decent plays and balance in the run game, I think he might surprise some people. Would be interesting to see what goes down if Foles comes in looking like an all-star with all of Vicks hype and humongous contract.
Me- "I received a 30 day ban, then 4 days later I noticed it became a 60 day ban. Why?
There you go with that ref-home-cooking nonsense again. In their home games, Seattle has more penalties called on them than their opponents, and more penalty yards against them. So you can toss that notion in the trash.
Regardless of the reasons, they are amplified at home, especially Wilson.
Since the loss at SF a few weeks ago, the offense has changed some. Playbook has been opened more, team penalties are down, fewer drops, Wilson hangs tough in the pocket longer instead of bailing at the first sign of trouble, and he is taking more chances. He's throwing into tighter windows now, whereas before, he was very hesitant to throw unless his reciever was open. Passing TDs have gone up. They are putting more points on the board.
Yeah, Seattle is notorious for playing lousy on the road. Long flights can be blamed (you used that excuse when NE came over and lost). I would argue that it's easier to go from playig at 1 pm to playing at 4 pm than it is to go from 1 pm to 10 am. Regardless, the difference this year is that the hawks are not getting blown out. They lose by 7 or less, and have a chance during the last drive.
@ cards- Edwards dropped one in the end zone in the final seconds
@ rams- driving in final minute, TE slips and falls, INT
This team will give you a heart attack in the 4th quarter.
Hawks have an easier schedule than the niners and they are right on their heels. Going to Chicago doesn't worry me that much. Went there 3 times the last 2 years and won twice. They'll rattle Cutler, and they have the secondary to keep Marshall in check. (And Thurmond just came off of IR, so our pass D will improve. He's a big improvement over Trufant, who is just old and brittle now.) We'll see what happens.
hawky, it's more than just penalties called that determines it. because if it's 3rd and goal on the 5 and there is a questionable call made against a visiting team in Seattle, that suddenly makes it first and goal, despite the fact it only awards 2.5 yards. And from the games I've seen, it appears there are some questionable calls that go the way of the crowd when refs make some decisions at critical moments. And everyone has long flights, and everyone usually plays better at home than on the road... but it's just getting to the point where I think reputation has crept into the officials' minds, just like how certain players get flagged for person fouls because of their rep, or get away with playing a certain way because of their rep. Don't think it's any different for a team in general, especially when there is that much hype around it.
Bears still suck. I am not sold on them whatsoever. Cutler sucks and it doesn't take much to rattle him. In an era where QBs routinely throw for 4,300+ yards and 30 TDs, he struggles to hover slightly over 3,000, and he throws far too many picks to ever be considered scary. The Chicago offense is still built around their run game and defense. Other than that, you subtract some of the Bears' 8 defensive TDs and suddenly you'll see a very common mediocre team that has a good defense and no offense. Bears just have an elite defense, and that's why they can stay competitive, but in the playoffs it's been proven you need a good QB to advance, and Cutler just isn't good.
Ugh... Patriots blow out a quality opponent finally and.... Gronkowski breaks his forearm and is out 4-6 weeks... that really changes things, and I was so excited and thought that win gave us a great shot at a first round bye... but now I don't see us being able to make up any games on HOU or BAL. Damn.. I just have to hope Hernandez comes back healthy next week for the first time like all season, and that Gronkowski can come back in time for the playoffs.
![CoolHandLuke [1582871]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1582871-7245-large.png "CoolHandLuke [1582871]")
Now, normally I understand "any given Sunday" about the NFL, but I was under the impression the NFC was far and away the better conference, and that SF may be the best team in that conference (or at least interchangeable in the top 3 spots). Interesting.
![bosox [278767]](http://awardimages.torn.com/278767-86027-large.png "bosox [278767]")
![SpazzyMcgee [1519781]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1519781-84394-large.png "SpazzyMcgee [1519781]")
![Skunkdoctor [1371548]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1371548-62086-large.png "Skunkdoctor [1371548]")
![-El- [463504]](http://awardimages.torn.com/463504-30159-large.png "-El- [463504]")
![Chit [1380260]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1380260-65727-large.png "Chit [1380260]")
![_TheCrow_ [686314]](http://awardimages.torn.com/686314-57011-large.png "_TheCrow_ [686314]")
![Erk [1538328]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1538328-49318-large.png "Erk [1538328]")
you put Cushing on NE and he'd make all the difference in the world, but for the Texans, he was just one of many on that team that was highly talented.
![hawky [1617517]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1617517-47762-large.png "hawky [1617517]")
Follow @TornRPG