View Single Post
  #243  
Old 09-17-2007, 03:22 PM
rafiki rafiki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,037
Default Re: Kendall traded...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like I said, 9 games vs teams who won't be in post season, some of them twice against 1 team obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

4 of those games vs Miami and Buffalo, where if you knew anything about those games, no matter what, they play eachother HARD. Some of the hardest hits can come from those games. I would not be suprised for Buff and/or Miami to beat us at home, and I wouldn't be suprised to beat them at home. You are throwing away Buffalo as a bad team because of an 0-2 record, then you clearly don't watch football. They played a great game week 1 vs denver, then had a very tough game @ pitts.

Are you really going to say the Cleveland isn't a team capable of winning? Did you not witness the score of 51 they put up? I don't care what defense you are facing, 51 points is something special. That offense is loaded with potential, and the defense has its strong spots.

Just because a team won't make the playoffs does not mean they are a weak team that you can [censored] roll over. Both Denver and Cinci didn't make the playoffs last year, does that mean they are a [censored] team? They both have potential to make a deep playoff, possible superbowl run. Washington? Strong as hell offense, a defense that should be recognized as a playoff defense. The Giants have a terrible defense, but they have a very strong offense that could put up plenty of points agaisnt teams.

Before you spout out random [censored] of 'They no make playoffs. they suck' atleast back up your talk mang.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just sounds like you're making a lot of excuses. Fact is every team in the NFL can play well on any given day. You know this, and I know this. Denver just found that out yesterday. But you have to win those games if you want to see 10-6. And I'm just saying that you're playing 9 games against teams who won't play in the playoffs. It's softer then a lot of schedules out there. No need to get testy.
Reply With Quote