|
|
|
|
#1
11-21-2007, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
Lol. Kyro - I think I see part of your problem. You are so wound up that you don't look at who posts what. None of the 'facts' you present in your last post were even stated by me yet you attribute them all to me.
As a matter of fact, I dont think the Skins or Jets have an especially good secondary, but I havent said that specifically, nor does it matter to MY OPINION - which was that GB does have a good sceondary, and it will be a difference maker in them covering the spread against the Lions. 
|
|
#2
11-21-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Kyro - I think I see part of your problem. You are so wound up that you don't look at who posts what. None of the 'facts' you present in your last post were even stated by me yet you attribute them all to me. As a matter of fact, I dont think the Skins or Jets have an especially good secondary, but I havent said that specifically, nor does it matter to MY OPINION - which was that GB does have a good sceondary, and it will be a difference maker in them covering the spread against the Lions. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't really attribute those to you. I'm responding to both of you. You both think Washington has a poor secondary. You're both wrong. You seemed to agree with catatonia on his post so I'm going to lump you both in when I respond. Also, Washington's secondary is better than GB's secondary. GB's secondary is averagish.
|
|
#3
11-26-2007, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No pumpkin pie from Vegas
OK, maybe Washington's secondary isn't better than it's running game anymore.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3127928
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
