RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 19, 2009 10:57:14 GMT -5
If the Vikings face the Saints--they'll win--they OWN the Saints. One of the few teams Vikes actually find ways to win no matter what happens. Just find it very "coincidental" that 2 most likely candidates to be shipped to Los Angeles and in need of new stadiums are off to "great starts". NFL football is WWE during regular season--and in postseason they let you play football. Ummmm...what? The Vikings have gotten lucky, but it's not like they've had any major calls go there way that I can think of (heck, the Arkansas-Florida game had more "judgment" calls go against the underdog then the Vikings have had go in their favor all season) And the Saints have destroyed everyone they've played. There's no Lakers v. Kings style officiating craziness, so how is the NFL doing it WWE style? Was not referring to Vikings/Saints when talking about WWE comment---do think it's hilarious how people just ignore the stadium issue and fact the teams most likely to be heading to Los Angeles are off to great starts. If fans/communities dont' step up--they'll be a race to see who leaves first--and Wilf has already hinted at it happening--though he lets minority ownership do the talking for him. WWE comment is in reference to the awful officiating, the horrific inconsistency in calls that are made--where you get 2 different rulings on a rule within a flip of channel, the fact players can't hit a QB--I'm a Pats fan--but Brady is treated like a newborn back there, while another QB can get a shot in face and nothing is called. Let's not even discuss the "illegal contact" rule which is called so inconsistently and at opportune moments and the instant replay system which is so less effective then college system--which is quicker, more accurate, and doesn't effect flow of a game--unless it's OU-Texas. Come postseason--you are allowed to hit, play physical, and guys can use their talent to decide games. Regular season--it's about 7 on 7 level--where all the league cares about is points, protecting "stars"--they do this as much as "hated" NBA, and it's embarrassing. NFL has their "favorites"--Patriots, Colts, Favre, Manning's, Brady the Baby (god forbid he's touched after being hurt last year) and it's ridiculous.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 19, 2009 11:40:57 GMT -5
as a vikings fan, i'm very happy they are 6-0, but this team will not win a SB with childress as head coach. he coaches not to lose. he did it in the SF game and he did it again yesterday. the saints, on the other hand, are always attacking offensively. what in the hell did you pay QB4 12 mill to do exactly? hand off 3 times and settle for a fg? i pray winfield is not out for an extended period of time. they are a completely different team defensively without him out there. If the Vikings face the Saints--they'll win--they OWN the Saints. One of the few teams Vikes actually find ways to win no matter what happens. What exactly is this a reference to? They found a way to win against the Saints one game last season. The last time they played before that it was 2005, it was a blowout, and the backfields were Brooks/McAllister and Culpepper/Moore. I'm also a little confused as to how you could say a team that just absolutely demolished one of the best defenses in football could get owned by a team that's given up 20 a game and has already had the benefit of facing two of the least competent offenses in football. All that being said, completing 32 yard passes as time expires and hoping the opposing kicker misses from 44 yards indoors are not successful playoff strategies, and Childress really sucks.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 19, 2009 14:30:17 GMT -5
If the Vikings face the Saints--they'll win--they OWN the Saints. One of the few teams Vikes actually find ways to win no matter what happens. What exactly is this a reference to? They found a way to win against the Saints one game last season. The last time they played before that it was 2005, it was a blowout, and the backfields were Brooks/McAllister and Culpepper/Moore. I'm also a little confused as to how you could say a team that just absolutely demolished one of the best defenses in football could get owned by a team that's given up 20 a game and has already had the benefit of facing two of the least competent offenses in football. All that being said, completing 32 yard passes as time expires and hoping the opposing kicker misses from 44 yards indoors are not successful playoff strategies, and Childress really sucks. Certain teams just have others number---and when it's Vikings-Saints--I'll take the Queens. If you pay attention to this site--you should know I despise the Vikings, Favre and any/every MN team-so believe me, I hope you are right--but I just dont' trust the Saints--they had their annual "Look how great the Saints are..." feature stories--and that usually means trouble--for them.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 19, 2009 15:07:59 GMT -5
As a Saints' fan, I'll admit I'm biased. But unlike recent history, I believe this team is real. Saints lost 6 games by a total of 18 points last year, two of which were due to missed field goals. Last year, Saints had no consistent playmakers on D other than Vilma. Quite simply, when they needed a play on defense, they couldn't make it. This year, the addition of Sharper and Greer has upgraded the play of the D. As well, Shanle is quietly playing excellent ball, the best of his career, and Harper has returned(though IMO he is the weakest secondary player). There are other reasons I could point out, but for this discussion, those reasons are sufficient.
Saints must prove it over the course of the season. I recognize that. Don't sleep on them, though. They were close last year, and, I believe, far superior this year. They have as good a chance as anyone to win it.
And the Saints will not be leaving New Orleans for Los Angeles or anyplace else in the near future. They have one of the sweetest stadium deals (with the State of LA) in the NFL, a waiting list for season tickets, and the Benson family has invested heavily in real estate in the Super Dome vicinity. Nope! Not going anywhere any time soon.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 19, 2009 15:43:24 GMT -5
And the Saints will not be leaving New Orleans for Los Angeles or anyplace else in the near future. They have one of the sweetest stadium deals (with the State of LA) in the NFL, a waiting list for season tickets, and the Benson family has invested heavily in real estate in the Super Dome vicinity. Nope! Not going anywhere any time soon. I didn't know that, but I'm fully aware of how likely it is that the Vikings will be in LA for the 2011 season (their lease expires after the 2010 season). I just prefer not to think about it or talk about it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 19, 2009 16:39:38 GMT -5
And the Saints will not be leaving New Orleans for Los Angeles or anyplace else in the near future. They have one of the sweetest stadium deals (with the State of LA) in the NFL, a waiting list for season tickets, and the Benson family has invested heavily in real estate in the Super Dome vicinity. Nope! Not going anywhere any time soon. I didn't know that, but I'm fully aware of how likely it is that the Vikings will be in LA for the 2011 season (their lease expires after the 2010 season). I just prefer not to think about it or talk about it. And they'll have a nice new stadium to play in after a few years... www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Los-Angeles-Are-You-Ready-For-Some-Football-64701932.html
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 19, 2009 16:44:57 GMT -5
Can we move the Redskins, so we don't have to wallow in their awfulness anymore?
Plus, moving the Redskins would most likely mean the elimination of what I believe is really the only truly offensive nickname in pro sports. ;D
(I say this with full awareness that my Ravens have only won one more game than the Redskins. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that if the Ravens' schedule included an opener and then 5 winless teams in a row, they'd probably be 6-0, not 2-4.)
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Oct 19, 2009 17:03:58 GMT -5
Hmm... a remarkably expensive sports-related prospective building project with one local news source's readership apparently split between thrilled and furious. I think I've heard this one before somewhere.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 20, 2009 0:59:02 GMT -5
I just have to say--Denver keeps proving me wrong--great job with the special teams and finding a way to win and playing great defense--especially in 2nd Half. Kudos.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 20, 2009 11:02:33 GMT -5
I heard this morning how Denver got Kyle Orton and two first round picks for Cutler ... their question was whether, at this point, Denver would gladly have traded Cutler and two first rounders for Orton ...
That's probably an exaggeration, but you have to admit there's some merit there.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2009 15:12:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 20, 2009 15:49:58 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 20, 2009 15:56:49 GMT -5
You lawyers out there. Zorn has a five-year contract with three years guaranteed. Management strongly recommended he give up his play-calling. If Zorn refused and said "screw you, I'm the coach" and they fired him, is he still entitled to the three years of guaranteed contract? If so, he's a pantywaist for not doing so.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 20, 2009 19:39:22 GMT -5
You lawyers out there. Zorn has a five-year contract with three years guaranteed. Management strongly recommended he give up his play-calling. If Zorn refused and said "screw you, I'm the coach" and they fired him, is he still entitled to the three years of guaranteed contract? If so, he's a pantywaist for not doing so. Punt. There's no way to know the answer to that question without actually seeing the contract.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 20, 2009 23:12:23 GMT -5
In fairness ... and I certainly have neither a dog in the fight, nor any information as to the contract ... but, while I would understand the incentive to get what you can, while you can ... I would think that such a mentality would be tempered, at least to a degree, by the drive to get "even more" later. Such a "surrender," while finanicially rewarding in the short run, might actually be counterproductive in the long run. Of course, that would presume that someone else with deep pockets would ever hire Zorn again. As much as I like the guy, that remains somewhat in dispute.
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Oct 23, 2009 10:23:09 GMT -5
So Zorn is going to last the season? Uhhhhh.
Enjoy being 2-14 Skins. 3-13 at best.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 23, 2009 12:43:18 GMT -5
Did I hear that right? I swear that they said that the guy the Skins hired to be their new OC was calling bingo numbers just a couple of weeks ago. Calling bingo numbers to calling plays in the NFL in a matter of weeks ... I guess he might have found his real "calling."
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Oct 26, 2009 0:32:42 GMT -5
I've got a question for the NFL (F stands for Favre) fans who saw today's Steelers-Vikings game; when the kiss butt announcers are worshipping Favre for his "fake" blocks, and concern over receivers he almost kills (don't really remember the sprints when he would put Driver's life on the line in Green Bay) why don't they point out his chicken FECES lack of effort on the returns by opponent? He had 2 chances today to do something substantial and instead just gave one of the most gutless efforts you'll see. Jeff Reed of Steelers was singled out by FOX "worshippers" for his lack of effort on Harvin's return--but "Our Brett" gave 2 half assed efforts--especially on the fumble return by Woodley and they don't say a word. Wonder why??? Any reason I was stuck with Bears-Bengals and Raiders-Jets in entirety before changing to more competitive game? What a joke. Fighting Dick Jauron's have 2 wins in a row--get that contract extension talk going in Buffalo. Hate the "London game" and glad it was another stinker.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Oct 26, 2009 5:50:11 GMT -5
i thought the same thing watching QB4's half assed effort during the woodley and fox returns for TD's. again, like i said last week, this team will not win with that bearded moron as coach. first and goal from the 1 and peterson only gets it one time.
the vikes lost, but i can watch this over and over
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 8, 2009 19:28:37 GMT -5
Redskins are pathetic.
|
|