Jump to content

GatorBait19

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,870

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by GatorBait19

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I had to throw this in a more football appropriate thread so that it doesn't take up the basketball thread. It made sense.

     

     

     

    I think the rule changes between the two games make it really interesting. College OT is awesome and nobody can deny that. It also makes it so that when players come into the NFL they have to adapt completely and that includes rule changes. I think college football is made to be more "fun" if that makes any sense. It has more leeway than the NFL does and that's why you see so many coaches staying in the college ranks instead of moving to the NFL teams.

     

    Besides Pete Carroll who is going into a perfect situation - an entire new staff including GM makes a completely fresh start. That doesn't happen often.

     

    I agree that College is more exciting, I just wished they would do down by contact, and two feet in for a catch

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Talent is old. Mavs are a wonderful 50 win team.... until playoff time. Anyone can contend with any team for a 7 game series and the Magic proved that last year against the Cavs.

     

    Also, you say these teams contend..... but do the win the series?

     

    For the last time, Shaq started with ORL, not the West. Also, I believe I said today, how is a bunch of older vets who won those MVP back before the new talent, make them the best talent of today? See you keep bring up the last 10 years, in which I keep asking for today. Dirk isn't a superstar like you think (hell can't win in the playoffs). Your beloved KG couldn't either (in fact I remember most people gave him that MVP after his team made it out of the first round, and there was many who question if he didn't would he have won it), Tim (can't argue with him or Kobe). I mean if you look at history of the last 20 years West owns the MVP race. Now here is the grand question, in the last 20 years, how many MVP's have won titles? What 6 or 7 I believe.

     

    Last, how can you throw out the Magic would be beaten by the Blazers? See there goes your urge to overvalue again.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    The only basketball I've been able to watch was back in HS and when I played it growing up I disliked it. There is a significant difference in fouls called between HS, College and Pro basketball that I don't understand. Keep in mind I've never watched a full NBA game. It's my least favorite sport besides baseball.

     

    Why did I post in this thread? To post my anti-NBA opinion that nobody will care about. :)

     

    lol, I believe it's for protection of high school players. Kind of why I never understood NCAA and NFL don't follow the same rules?

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    probably not.

     

    So the 8 teams over there are all Championship teams. Well, sense the Mavs can't make it out of the 1st round, Den can't beat Lakers, Jazz can't beat Lakers I'd assume you are right.

     

    See the biggest argument is the 50 wins and more talent. I don't get where you get more talent from at all. Also you failed to see that if the Lakers are the best team in the West and proven that the last three years, then were is the championship contenders in the West? See you can say that they are all champion contenders in the West. When everyone truly knows the Lakers are the team to beat....... well then there truly aren't contenders out there.

     

    Once again, I don't get your argument about the top talent either. Since (in your words) have given no proof to back it up. At least when I said the West isn't that deep, I cited the fact that only two teams from the West have won a championship in the last 12 years. The East on the other hand has had 4.

     

    So go ahead, say the West and it's talented 50 wins team is the best conference. In the East people will continue to watch an an old broken down team, with a lousy SF and two 34 year old shells of themselves players whip up on the Magic. Then the West best :eek:

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Wow, you're talented. You use on the fact that I didn't reread my post (to make sure there were no errors) to not support your answer. Hm, well how about this.

     

    I want you to give me support that claims the West is the best today. Stop giving me crap about 50 win teams, when we all know the only true contender is the Lakers.

     

    I am sorry I didn't check and make sure my post was perfect before I submitted it.

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    If you have nothing to add to the topic, don't post. From your total mis-statement of what I said and what I was responding to, it's clear you have no idea what I was talking about, but nevertheless felt compelled to jump in and add absolutely nothing of any value. No, nobody said the East was better to them, and even if they had, it's an opinion that is not supported by evidence. All opinions are not created equal. I'm not "making people remember" stuff, I'm pointing out that arguing I "overvalue" the West is nonsense because the West has been and still is measurably better. Completely failing to understand a point that wasn't directed at you, you proceed to say "let's get back to the real topic." My solution is: don't address points you 1) don't understand and 2) aren't directed towards you.

     

     

    Yeah, see, the point was you overvalue the west and believe everything in the west is better, I argued

     

    If I remember right you stated that you overvalued them because they have been dominate for years, i disagreed. While they dominated the first 5 that was all, last 5 have been equal in championships, and before that they were blown away by the East since the start of the NBA and BAA

     

    You, stated that the East got old players from the West, I argued and said Shaq came from ORL, and the other two were raised in the East

     

    then you talked about KG and Allen being 34, and I said who cares if they are 34. Are you saying Jordan at 40 didn't scare you?

     

    you also talked about of Paul P. hasn't show up for the playoffs in which he has been their best player in the conf finals

     

    And I say the East is better than the West. You can continue to sit on your horse and scream about the 50 wins, while I can still sit here and say that's great. ticket for 15 to the Lakers headed for Boston. You're only proof that the West is deep is 50 game winners. But in this decade that was dominated by the West, how many NBA Champions came from the West..... if I remember right, just 2 (Lakers and Spurs) to were the East had 3(C's, Heat, and Pistons)

     

    Oh and by the way crownsy also mentioned how he overvalues the East as well, so someone did mention it

     

    So now, let's stay on this topic.

     

    You stated that the Lakers of two years ago, are better. Well aren't the C's..... you wouldn't say Rondo is looking like the best PG in the NBA? the fact that KG is healthy and Allen is still a sharp shooter with Paulie P playing lights out in the conf. finals?

     

    Ariza might just be a better player than Artest? besides of the fact that Ariza isn't going to run in the stands and attack someone let's look at stats

     

    Ariza had better stats despite playing 5 less games, also Ariza wasn't brought in to be just a defender, he was also brought in to help the offense, where Artest was brought in for the main purpose of defending... now is you pointed out that Battier is the best defensive player on Rockets, well Kobe is the best on the Lakers.

     

    so now bring your evidence that today the West is a better conf. than the East, and please leave your played out 50 wins at home. leave the 2000-2009 season alone. Give me solid proof that today, the West would dominate the East.

     

    also one more thing, the west is old.... the East is were the action is

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Yes, because the Sonics and Blazers had to play 50 win teams 50 times a year. Funny how that causes you to be a bad team. I mean the T-Wolves aren't a playoff team in the East, but they look even worse when they play in a division where every other team won 50 games. The Nets played the Knicks and the 76ers 4 times each and still managed to put up the worst record in the league.

     

     

     

    Why do you want me to remember something that I didn't dispute because it is numbingly obvious? In other news, water is wet. Yes, once the East was better. For a long time you could win 35 games and make the playoffs in the West. But it's undeniably the deeper conference and has been for a decade, which is what I said.

     

    Because of the simple fact that your are making people remember stuff they didn't dispute (from what I read), you are sitting here talking about how the West owned the decade, I don't remember anyone arguing with that, they said this year East was better (to them)

     

    That's great that the West is the deeper league....... with just one true team that can play for the title, and don't come back with the Spurs can as well, they have gotten old and Suns proved this year they aren't what they once were. Mavs are a playoff team that's only good for the 1st round, Suns are talented but not enough to beat the Lakers, Den is the same. None of the West top three are good enough to beat the Magic, C's, and Cavs (but once again, that's my opinion)

     

    Also I found that comment about the Wolves funny, because they beat all of 1 playoff team in the East (the Heat by 3) where they beat Dallas, Uath, and Denver a combined 4 times (3 on the road) and there other East wins were the likes of 6ers, Wiz, and Nets. So yeah they looked pretty bad in the East too

     

    Now let's get back to real topics that are current, because no one will ever agree with each other, and this forum has forgotten at times that people have their own opinions and to live with them.

     

    Is the West Deep...... who cares..... all that matters is who is the Best, West or East, last year it was the West. Who will it be this year?

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Top 4 vs Top 4

     

    West first seed Lakers

     

    1) LA vs Cavs; 0-2 (Lost both by a combined 21)

    2) LA vs Magic; 1-1 (won by 6 at home, lose by 2 away)

    3) LA vs Hawks; 1-1 (won by 89 at home, and blown out by 17 away)

    4) LA vs C's; 1-1 (both games by 1 point)

     

    Overall; 3-5

     

     

    Second Mavs

     

    1) DAL vs Cavs; 1-1 (beat them at home by 7, blown out away by 16)

    2) DAL vs Magic; 1-1 (won at Orlando by 10, then lost by 15 at home)

    3) DAL vs Hawks; 1-1 (Lost at home by 5, won in OT by 8)

    4) DAL vs C's; 1-1 (won at Boston by 9, then lost by 9 at home)

     

    Overall; 4-4

     

     

    Third Suns

     

    1) PHO vs Cavs; 0-2 (Lost both by 17 away and 18 home)

    2) PHO vs Magic; 1-1 (Lost away by 22, won at home by 3)

    3) PHO vs Hawks; 1-1 (Lost away by 1 and won at home by 8)

    4) PHO vs C's; 2-0 (won both by 25)

     

    Overall; 4-4

     

     

    Forth Nuggets

     

    1) DEN vs Cavs; 2-0 ( won by 2 away in OT, won by 2 home)

    2) DEN vs Magic; 1-1 (won at home 18, lost away by 6)

    3) DEN vs Hawks; 1-1 (Lost by 25 away, won by 20 home)

    4) DEN vs C's; 1-1 (Lost by 14 away, won by 9 at home)

     

    Overall: 5-3

     

    So the top four teams in the West and top four in the East were even.

     

    You can go well the West is a deeper league, but at the end of the day your top four is all that matters.

     

    In the NFL it's Bengals, Pats, Chargers, Colts vs Vikes, Saints, Cowboys, Cards.

     

    NFC had 6 teams with double digit wins to the AFC's 4

     

    does that mean the NFC is the deeper league? well the AFC had 8 teams at 8 wins or less (8 wins in NFL isn't a winning season nor losing season) NFC had 9

     

    Final week of the season the NFC had no teams battling to make the playoffs, AFC had 5

     

    So even though the NFC seems to have the deeper league, which top 4 were the best?

     

    That's my point, does the West have a deeper league..... yes

     

    is the East a better league top 4 wise.... I believe so. I never think it will be the Suns, Mavs, or Nuggets for the finals. But in the East you could see before the Playoffs the C's, Cavs, Magic, and yes before they tanked in the playoffs the Hawks battling for a title

     

    3 of the four major awards went to the East. the East also had 3 of the 5 all nba first team...... but after that only 2 more on the third team

     

    So I guess it just in the end comes down to, do you want quantity or quality?

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Most big stars are from the East? Is this like, Kobe's draft rights started on the Charlotte Hornets? Seriously what? Duncan, Nowitzki, Bryant, Nash, and KG are all MVPs from the West. It's still statistically a superior conference: the Thunder were the EIGHTH seed in the West despite winning 50 games! That's the same number Boston won. And OKC was 22-8 against the East: if they played there full-time, they'd easily be right there with the Magic. If they kept up their same levels of performance they would've won about 60 games playing the Wizards, Pacers, and the rest of the no-hopers in the East.

     

    The East has gotten to the point where it can produce 2-3 teams at the same level as the top 6-7 teams in the west. That's what I mean when I say the west is a deeper conference.

     

     

    Sorry, I submitted it and tried to edit but it was acting up.

     

    I was going to edit it to where it said "most big stars are from the East (born wise)"

     

    And you are right, the West is a deeper league with the likes of the 6ers, Wiz, and Nets holding the East down.

     

    But remember the West had Blazers and Sonic battling for the top pick a couple years ago.

     

    Also I want you to remember that the NBA has always gone through this where one conf. is better than the other

     

    While the west may be 7 of 10 in 2000's it's been .500 the last 6 years (West was by far the much better conf. the first 6)

     

    But from 80-99 it was the East going 12 of 19

     

    from 60 to 79 it was the east 15 of 20

     

    50 59 it was the West 6 of 10

     

    So the East holds a commanding lead overall, and with this years free agent class coming up, Lebron, Dirk, Joe Johnson, Chris Bosh, D-Wade. Anything can happen with the power shift. But seeing as how most of the teams with money are in the East don't look for many big names to go out West (not saying any wont, just not many)

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Shaq played for ORL. first, most big stars are from the east.

     

    West dominated for years there, but it's a much more balanced league now.

     

    And Perice may have not shown up the first two rounds, but he's here now. Who cares if Allen and KG are 34. Are you saying just cuz Jordan was 40 he didn't scare you?

    Official NBA Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    So normally I have one sports team per sport. Some guys have a few favorites for whatever reason but I'm a Blues, OU Football, Rams, Cards guy. I was a Celtics fan as well because they had been so awful for so long and had that long history. So I became a fan of them but then Oklahoma City got the Thunder and as a former long time resident of OKC they became my "local" NBA team since St. Louis doesn't have one (for reasons I don't quite understand). So when both teams got into the playoffs I became conflicted. Then the Thunder started beating the Lakers and I was overwhelmed with joy. They fizzled and I'm left with the Celtics which even though the've done well I just lack the passion.

     

    That is until they stomped the Magic tonight. I was so sick of everyone talking up the Magic. Van Gundy is a panicky choke artists who is incapable of leading that team to a championship. This seals the deal here tonight. They were UNDEFEATED in the playoffs rolling over everything in their path and now they can't even win a game against the Celts. The same Celts the pundits and talking heads were sure wouldn't get past the Cleveland Lebron's.

     

    That being said if its LA/Boston in the Finals I see Phill rocking the XI lid when its all said and done.

     

    I agree, even though Magic are my team and I still believe they are talented, I have never been a fan of Van Gundy.

     

    My biggest worry coming into the series was shooting the 3 for the Magic. It's their life-blood and I have never understood why, they have a very talented center that can score low but they never get it to him. They'll play four on the prem. and just him in the middle, meanwhile they are paying Gortat, Howard, and Bass somewhere between 20 and 30 million dollars combine to avg 27 points between them.

     

    I think Stan Van needs to go and someone with a real offense that can score when the 3's are going down, needs to come in.

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Can't argue with you on that one. Why do I love scrambling QBs so much? For that exact reason. They'll take the hit if it gets them the first down. It takes me back to The Replacements - that QB who Falco replaces does a baseball slide when he could have dove for the first down. What an awesome movie. I will survive! ;)

     

    I remember when the Bucs stumbled at the end of 08-09 and people blamed Garcia, but all I saw was that man put his body on the line for the team

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Not sure why I put 5-10 when clearly the season is 16 games. I plead type-o!

     

    You have to admit that sometimes a set of receivers working together is better than having a franchise WR and two mediocre players. I think with the Patriots they just all clicked with Brady. They sure made it work.

     

    valid point, my biggest thing was his first year he didn't have that connection and still was able to win.

     

    The importance of a QB to me isn't stats, Terry Bradshaw had horrible stats. To me what makes a QB stand out so much is his ability to win, adversity, and to come fall into a pile of crap and come out smelling like roses.

     

    as much as I love Manning and wanted to put him there, his SB performance wouldn't let me.

     

    Brees is a great QB as well, but those two bad season with the Saints and hurt his image for that.

     

    Like I said I want a winner, which I why I like someone like Jeff Garcia, he puts his body on the line to give his team that chance every game

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    For historical accuracy - Peyton lead his team to a 5-10 record in 2001. The same year Mr Overhype (one of the many nicknames I have for Brady) made it to the Super Bowl and won it. I would have preferred to see the team who beat my Titans a year before win for the second year in a row.

     

    I'll agree that Brady didn't have any "name" WRs when he started. The one he did - Terry Glenn - was suspended during that '01 season. To say Troy Brown wasn't a good WR would be BS, but he certainly played a bigger role in the return game.

     

    To say he didn't have any receivers for the two other Super Bowls isn't correct. He had Deion Branch, David Patten, and David Givens. Having a big TE like David Graham was a big thing for them as well because they didn't use the spread offense at the time. He had all four of them for the two SB wins ('03 and '04).

     

    Also - whose had the best defense throughout their starting career? Tom Brady. Period.

     

    he went 6-10, it was Jim Mora's last seaon, so I was wrong Manning has had 2 losing seasons. Brees has had 2 or 3 while Tom has never had any

     

     

    and yes he had Deion Branch, Patten, and Givens...... now what have those three done without him? my thing is while he has had WR, before Moss and Welker he never had a WR that scares you like a Colston, Wayne, Harrison type

     

    Troy Brown was a dependable wideout, who played whatever the team needed him to play

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d818415ad&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

     

    okay couple things

     

    1) if a new open aired stadium was made, game like SEC title game and others like that would probably rather play there

     

    2) I have been in the Dome many of times, and while it isn't the best it also isn't the worst.

     

    I get why ATL would build their Falcons (even though they just had back to back winning seasons) a new stadium

     

    1) because you build a nice big stadium Super is in your sites

     

    2) They could do better than the Dome

     

     

     

    I just don't understand it myself because even if the new stadium was built in 7 years the Dome would only be 25, people like Vikes, 9ers and company must be kicking themselves because they have won Superbowls and have had several great teams and can't even tip toe towards a new stadium without someone objecting.

     

    But ATL seems to be right on board, so go Falcons if you get it

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Santonio Holmes already disagreeing with his teammates and coaching staff lol

     

    Holmes comments:

     

    http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5205711

     

    Ryans:

     

     

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/05/jets-rex-ryan-says-super-bowl-should-be-played-in-new-york/1

     

    Lol I know this is nothing but when your owner is trying to get something to happen, coming out and saying it shouldn't happen is quite funny

     

    interesting though is how now most arguements aren't about the cold, it's now about fairness of the game.

     

    M. Faulk said yesterday on NFL network that if the Dolphins were to make it playing the Giants or Packers how would it be a level playing field for the fins when they aren't use to the weather and the Northern teams are.

     

    He then went on to say that Northern teams like the Pats and Steelers have faired well in warm weather superbowl games.

     

    This will be interesting as we are only 4 days away from the announcement

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I can agree that Manning has had some amazing receivers but do you really think Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are in the same class as Marques Colston and Robert Meachum?

     

    You have to remember Colston is considered a top ten WR in the league by most NFL experts. The only reason his numbers don't reflex it is because of the fact that Saints run a spread offense and truly to spread the ball. You also have to remember that Meachem was a first round pick and is only going into his third year.

     

    But right now if you were a QB which group would you rather have to throw to? Saints (Meachem, Colston, Bush, Shockey) or Colts (Wayne, Clark, Addi, Gonzalez, Collie)

    Official TV Show Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I loved shows like Cheers, M*A*S*H and Wonder Years that had ongoing stories and epic endings. I mean, the finale of M*A*S*H... brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

     

    Right now I'm big time into How I Met Your Mother, and also like 30 Rock. But... they'll never split my sides as much as Marrid with Children did.

     

    Still the highest broadcast TV show episode ever........... or something like that

    Official NFL Discussion Thread

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I can't believe anyone could argue that Brady is #1 right now. You can definitely make an argument for him having the best career among active QBs, but as far as the here and now is concerned, it's Manning & Brees, and everybody else.

     

    To me Brees is not close to Tom and Peyton, because Tom and Peyton would never let a bad defense hold them down, Tom and Peyton would never let there teams go 7-9 or 8-8.

     

    But this arguement will be had through the end of their careers. Some will pick Manning, others Brees. I choose Brady because I like the underdog who wasn't drafted to be the franchise guy. I like a winner

     

    Manning and Brees have both won Superbowls, they have both had talented Wideouts. Brady won three and until Moss and Welker never had those franchise type WR.

     

    But again, this is something we could argue about forever and never get anywhere

×
×
  • Create New...