Originally posted by Midas Whale@Oct 13 2014, 03:12 PM

yea Vereen isn't really a great runner out of the backfield tho.
he is usually more effective running the ball when we spread it out and hand it to him on a draw.
he can catch the ball out of the back field too.

Ridley will be missed because of that

The good thing for the Pats is that their D seems to be getting it in gear and with the exception of the Broncos, they have a dece sched.

Also just so you guys know.

20/30 teams have less than 4 wins.


that equals 80% apparently.

math.

I actually agree.

I think that the Packers aren't what they used to be, and are closer to average than elite. You can't go far in the playoffs with a defense like that.

I haven't been following them too too much, but from what I hear their offence is slightly underperforming. Is that true?

Konrad Danke / C / 340 TPE / Texas / Maine / Czech
S54 Draft Class // Czech Republic


John Heimer-Schmidt // Former Whaler GM // Retired
The Greatest Shitstirrer of All Time


thanks @suavemente !

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 13 2014, 04:28 PM
Also just so you guys know.

20/30 teams have less than 4 wins.


that equals 80% apparently.

math.

I wasn't doing math when doing that, I as stating that most teams would be considered average than. The fact you went in depth is funny.

However since we are here, the Colts are terribly average too. Luck has the shared lead for INT's and it's great they pass the ball so much but if you turn it over it's not beneficial. All I was getting at is you seem to like to bad talk other teams as if your team is the best in the league. A narrow win over the Texans shouldn't be getting anyone high in confidence.

I know our defense isn't good and our O-Line is horrible. But we sit at 4-2 and it's not a bad position to be. Bad talking the Pats simply because you can is great, but when your team had to tank one whole season just to get a QB, it shows the lack of depth and the state of what the franchise was. Yes Luck has put them in a better spot, but until he wins a Super Bowl it's not like the Colts are in any better position going forward than a proven QB in Tom Brady.

LA Panthers Goaltender

Originally posted by Allways Purfect@Oct 13 2014, 04:35 PM
I actually agree.

I think that the Packers aren't what they used to be, and are closer to average than elite. You can't go far in the playoffs with a defense like that.

I haven't been following them too too much, but from what I hear their offence is slightly underperforming. Is that true?

Maybe slightly, but the bar is set high by Aaron's offence in recent years. He still owns the best TD/INT ratio and that bodes well going forward when your QB has to win you games down the stretch. We aren't all high and mighty, but from what us Packers fans have seen over the last little while, we will take this defense over last seasons. Also for the record, our defense wasn't good when we won the Superbowl, so its not always defense 24/7 to win.

LA Panthers Goaltender

Originally posted by JayTee@Oct 13 2014, 04:28 PM
Also just so you guys know.

20/30 teams have less than 4 wins.


that equals 80% apparently.

math.

it is doe.

The little that I've seen from Austin Davis has been impressive.
Is it already safe to say Bradford is done in St Louis?

Originally posted by Midas Whale@Oct 13 2014, 06:34 PM
The little that I've seen from Austin Davis has been impressive.
Is it already safe to say Bradford is done in St Louis?

Nah, he'll become an option somewhere else when St. Louis releases him. Maybe the Texans pick him up

Originally posted by Midas Whale@Oct 13 2014, 07:34 PM
The little that I've seen from Austin Davis has been impressive.
Is it already safe to say Bradford is done in St Louis?

I'd say so. Too injury prone and not worth the investment of time.

He'll have a shot as a #2 somewhere but I doubt he recovers to a legit #1 anytime soon

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by mpc@Oct 13 2014, 07:36 PM

Nah, he'll become an option somewhere else when St. Louis releases him. Maybe the Texans pick him up

You mean Bradford right?
I didn't mean done completely...just done in St Louis

Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 13 2014, 07:38 PM

I'd say so. Too injury prone and not worth the investment of time.

He'll have a shot as a #2 somewhere but I doubt he recovers to a legit #1 anytime soon

I think he'll get a starting job somewhere else.
Ryan Fitzpatrick got one )

Originally posted by Midas Whale@Oct 13 2014, 05:38 PM

I think he'll get a starting job somewhere else.
Ryan Fitzpatrick got one )

If Tavaris Jackson has a job anywhere, anything is possible.

LA Panthers Goaltender

Loved Tre Mason in college.
He's looking good so far tonight

What do you guys think of Jimmy Gapparola?

Konrad Danke / C / 340 TPE / Texas / Maine / Czech
S54 Draft Class // Czech Republic


John Heimer-Schmidt // Former Whaler GM // Retired
The Greatest Shitstirrer of All Time


thanks @suavemente !

Originally posted by C.J.@Oct 13 2014, 04:26 PM

I wasn't doing math when doing that, I as stating that most teams would be considered average than. The fact you went in depth is funny.

However since we are here, the Colts are terribly average too. Luck has the shared lead for INT's and it's great they pass the ball so much but if you turn it over it's not beneficial. All I was getting at is you seem to like to bad talk other teams as if your team is the best in the league. A narrow win over the Texans shouldn't be getting anyone high in confidence.

I know our defense isn't good and our O-Line is horrible. But we sit at 4-2 and it's not a bad position to be. Bad talking the Pats simply because you can is great, but when your team had to tank one whole season just to get a QB, it shows the lack of depth and the state of what the franchise was. Yes Luck has put them in a better spot, but until he wins a Super Bowl it's not like the Colts are in any better position going forward than a proven QB in Tom Brady.

I never said the colts were in a good position. So don't know why you felt the need to bring that up.

also I didn't know counting simple numbers was in depth. I mean it isn't for me but...