MelodicRock Fantasy Football

[Maui Tom]

that's all I am saying...not one talking head was chatting up AZ last year at this time......it's really a total crap shoot in the NFL nowadays...

[YoungJRNY]

Arizona played and almost WON the SB last year...all of us collectively really know ZILCH.....

Arizona is supposed to be better this year than last. We'll have to keep an eye peeled on them for sure.

AZ might not win their division. Hasselback is back. Holmgren is gone, TJ Houshmewhateverthefuckhisnameis is in SEA. Remember, AZ was only 9-7 last year. I look for a flat year from them.

Houshmenzahaeknqk is a great off season accusation for the Seahawks. Like you said, Hasselback is back, and with Holmgren gone, I think you'll see a fresh team poised to make a comeback in a BAD division. (Even though I think Arizona will be decent, and SF is on the rise.) Arizona got hot at the right time last year, winning games to their advantage AT HOME.. other than winning in Carolina. Once they beat CAR last year I had that feeling that ARI could upset Philly at home because of the home field advantage. (I still say Arizona's the hardest stadium to play in the NFL.) Arizona was a mediocre 9-7 at best and finished off the end of the season embarrassingly. They were a team last year that will be the culprit of being a 'flash in the pan.'

[Enigma869]

In all 3 wins they rushed for 100+ yards. In their lone loss (with Brady) they did not run for 100 yards.

Sorry dude, but I don't go by statistics, because running statistics are ridiculous. Most teams who are ahead in a game run the ball to kill the clock. The Patriots won their first super bowl because they had a superior defense (and it's the only one of their championship teams I can say that about). While they did indeed rush for over 100 yards in their first championship game against St. Louis, there wasn't a back on their team with over 100 yards, and the whopping 133 yards they ran for was split between 6 players. In their second Super Bowl, Brady threw for over 350 yards and the immortal Antwoin Smith rushed for about 80 yards! In their final Super Bowl victory, Corey Dillon ran for less than 80 yards, so as I said, they didn't win by running the football. If you examine NFL statistics over 30 years, you will see that most teams who win have guys rush for over 100 yards, but it's usually because the team has a lead and they simply keep handing the ball off, not because they necessarily have a juggernaut running team! Hell, if you hand the ball off 30 times a game, you're pretty much guaranteed to get over 100 yards!

I'm commenting on the 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers and not the "past 10 years."

As I said previously, the 2009 Steelers haven't done a fucking thing, and neither has any other team!

Based on the fact that they won the fucking Super Bowl last year and they're better this year. That's what!

That and fifty cents will buy you a newspaper (if there are any still left in business). Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there. The decade is almost over and only one team has won back to back Super Bowls in this decade, and it wasn't the Steelers, so the odds say that they won't win it this season!

This is as dumb a comment as this thread has. I haven't seen the Raiders "play a single game" and I know they're gonna suck. Are you honestly saying that you don't "think" certain teams are going to be better than other ones until you watch a few games?

Dude...connect your fucking brain cells. I never said that I had to see a game to know whether a team is going to be good or not good. I simply said that I am not annointing a single fucking team in the NFL as the "best" without any of them having played a single down. Sure I know that the Raiders are going to suck. I also know that the Lions will suck, but before having seen either team play, I can't tell you which team is going to suck more! The statement I made really isn't that complicated! It's actually heavily based in logic, which is why it seems so out of place on this board!

[Enigma869]

Arizona is supposed to be better this year than last. We'll have to keep an eye peeled on them for sure.

In my opinion, Arizona won't be better. Given the fact that they went to the Super Bowl and lost last year, the only real way for them to be "better" is to win it all. That's NOT happening. They have two very good receivers, but that's about it. Warner is another year older and has a history of injuries, so I wouldn't be placing any bets on the Cardinals!

[Rockindeano]

(I still say Arizona's the hardest stadium to play in the NFL.)

You make a lot of good well thought out comments dude, but this one has me scratching my head so much I think I now need stitches. AZ is never sold out, and when Dallas comes in there, there's more blue than red!

[YoungJRNY]

That and fifty cents will buy you a newspaper (if there are any still left in business). Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there. The decade is almost over and only one team has won back to back Super Bowls in this decade, and it wasn't the Steelers, so the odds say that they won't win it this season!

Dude this is a fucking stupid explanation. What makes you think that everyone has to go through the Patriots to be a worthy Super Bowl Champion? Last time I checked, New England failed to make the playoffs last season, and even lost the Super Bowl to the Giants the year before, so they hold 0 water when saying something as retarded as 'they didn't get past New England!" What a dumbass. Point of the matter is, the Giants were the Super Bowl champions last year, the year before that it was Indianapolis, and the year before that was Pittsburgh. New England shouldn't even be in the picture of the conversation when talking about getting through teams. If anything, since the Steelers didn't face the champion Giants to get their crown, then maybe they don't deserve it. Sorry dude, the NFL or any sport don't work that way.

The Steelers manhandled New England last year in the regular season, so they did take care of New England when they had a chance to do so. According to your logic, just because the Steelers didn't play the Lions last year, or the Bears, and since they weren't 'forced to play those teams' they shouldn't be taken so seriously as Champions? What if the Steelers, or Colts, or Bronco's win the Superbowl in 2015 and got there by not playing New England.. would your blabble still hold that they aren't worthy because they weren't forced to play them? You need to find other ways to manipulate because that argument just makes you look bad.

[Saint John]

Sorry dude, but I don't go by statistics, because running statistics are ridiculous. Most teams who are ahead in a game run the ball to kill the clock. The Patriots won their first super bowl because they had a superior defense (and it's the only one of their championship teams I can say that about). While they did indeed rush for over 100 yards in their first championship game against St. Louis, there wasn't a back on their team with over 100 yards, and the whopping 133 yards they ran for was split between 6 players. In their second Super Bowl, Brady threw for over 350 yards and the immortal Antwoin Smith rushed for about 80 yards! In their final Super Bowl victory, Corey Dillon ran for less than 80 yards, so as I said, they didn't win by running the football. If you examine NFL statistics over 30 years, you will see that most teams who win have guys rush for over 100 yards, but it's usually because the team has a lead and they simply keep handing the ball off, not because they necessarily have a juggernaut running team! Hell, if you hand the ball off 30 times a game, you're pretty much guaranteed to get over 100 yards!

Then what the fuck do you call the italicized and bolded parts?!?!

Dude...connect your fucking brain cells.

I only need to use one of millions to pick apart your posts.

[YoungJRNY]

(I still say Arizona's the hardest stadium to play in the NFL.)

You make a lot of good well thought out comments dude, but this one has me scratching my head so much I think I now need stitches. AZ is never sold out, and when Dallas comes in there, there's more blue than red!

Every time Arizona plays Prime-Time, that crowd is always in a frenzy. Has to be one of the loudest stadiums to play in, other than Seattle. Arizona always seems to be a helluva home team of late, and most of that success is feeding off the crowd. I remember in 2006 the Steelers played down there and we couldn't even use our silent count it was that crazy. We had trouble that day playing there. I just always got a vibe that Arizona is a helluva hard place to play on the road, and it showed in last season's post season.

[Ehwmatt]

That and fifty cents will buy you a newspaper (if there are any still left in business). Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there. The decade is almost over and only one team has won back to back Super Bowls in this decade, and it wasn't the Steelers, so the odds say that they won't win it this season!

Dude this is a fucking stupid explanation. What makes you think that everyone has to go through the Patriots to be a worthy Super Bowl Champion? Last time I checked, New England failed to make the playoffs last season, and even lost the Super Bowl to the Giants the year before, so they hold 0 water when saying something as retarded as 'they didn't get past New England!" What a dumbass. Point of the matter is, the Giants were the Super Bowl champions last year, the year before that it was Indianapolis, and the year before that was Pittsburgh. New England shouldn't even be in the picture of the conversation when talking about getting through teams. If anything, since the Steelers didn't face the champion Giants to get their crown, then maybe they don't deserve it. Sorry dude, the NFL or any sport don't work that way.

The Steelers manhandled New England last year in the regular season, so they did take care of New England when they had a chance to do so. According to your logic, just because the Steelers didn't play the Lions last year, or the Bears, and since they weren't 'forced to play those teams' they shouldn't be taken so seriously as Champions? What if the Steelers, or Colts, or Bronco's win the Superbowl in 2015 and got there by not playing New England.. would your blabble still hold that they aren't worthy because they weren't forced to play them? You need to find other ways to manipulate because that argument just makes you look bad.

I agree, I fucking hate this argument made in sports in any fashion and unfortunately it's all too common. It's usually advanced by bitter fanboys too blind to admit the fundamental truth that champions play all comers, whoever they may be. Part of a championship run is staying healthy, Brady did not do that last year, thus Pats did not make the playoffs. Doesn't take away the legitimacy of the Steelers' win.

I also hate the other year-by-year argument alluded to in the original post, the dreaded "Well, the TV commentators don't have anything meaningful to say right now, so we'll point out some statistical 'trend' that couldn't possibly factor into any substantive prediction regarding an eventual outcome." Pointing out that no team has ever come from a 3-0 hole in a best of 7 playoff in 30 years is relevant, but pointing out that there is no history of a twopeat in the recent past does not preclude or even give a strong probability against twopeating.

[Saint John]

(I still say Arizona's the hardest stadium to play in the NFL.)

You make a lot of good well thought out comments dude, but this one has me scratching my head so much I think I now need stitches. AZ is never sold out, and when Dallas comes in there, there's more blue than red!

Indeed, but come playoff time last year that place was a fucking madhouse. So, in a way, I think you're both right. You, regarding the regular season, and YoungJRNY regarding the playoffs.

[YoungJRNY]

That and fifty cents will buy you a newspaper (if there are any still left in business). Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there. The decade is almost over and only one team has won back to back Super Bowls in this decade, and it wasn't the Steelers, so the odds say that they won't win it this season!

Dude this is a fucking stupid explanation. What makes you think that everyone has to go through the Patriots to be a worthy Super Bowl Champion? Last time I checked, New England failed to make the playoffs last season, and even lost the Super Bowl to the Giants the year before, so they hold 0 water when saying something as retarded as 'they didn't get past New England!" What a dumbass. Point of the matter is, the Giants were the Super Bowl champions last year, the year before that it was Indianapolis, and the year before that was Pittsburgh. New England shouldn't even be in the picture of the conversation when talking about getting through teams. If anything, since the Steelers didn't face the champion Giants to get their crown, then maybe they don't deserve it. Sorry dude, the NFL or any sport don't work that way.

The Steelers manhandled New England last year in the regular season, so they did take care of New England when they had a chance to do so. According to your logic, just because the Steelers didn't play the Lions last year, or the Bears, and since they weren't 'forced to play those teams' they shouldn't be taken so seriously as Champions? What if the Steelers, or Colts, or Bronco's win the Superbowl in 2015 and got there by not playing New England.. would your blabble still hold that they aren't worthy because they weren't forced to play them? You need to find other ways to manipulate because that argument just makes you look bad.

I agree, I fucking hate this argument made in sports in any fashion and unfortunately it's all too common. It's usually advanced by bitter fanboys too blind to admit the fundamental truth that champions play all comers, whoever they may be. Part of a championship run is staying healthy, Brady did not do that last year, thus Pats did not make the playoffs. Doesn't take away the legitimacy of the Steelers' win.

I also hate the other year-by-year argument alluded to in the original post, the dreaded "Well, the TV commentators don't have anything meaningful to say right now, so we'll point out some statistical 'trend' that couldn't possibly factor into any substantive prediction regarding an eventual outcome." Pointing out that no team has ever come from a 3-0 hole in a best of 7 playoff in 30 years is relevant, but pointing out that there is no history of a twopeat in the recent past does not preclude or even give a strong probability against twopeating.

I agree, I fucking hate this argument made in sports in any fashion and unfortunately it's all too common. It's usually advanced by bitter fanboys too blind to admit the fundamental truth that champions play all comers, whoever they may be. Part of a championship run is staying healthy, Brady did not do that last year, thus Pats did not make the playoffs. Doesn't take away the legitimacy of the Steelers' win.

Come to think of it, using John's logic, the 2006 Super Bowl Champion Colts' weren't a worthy champion because # 1- They lost to Pittsburgh the year before in the '05 divisional round and # 2- they didn't face Pittsburgh in the '06 playoff because Pittsburgh missed the playoffs that year, thus them not getting through Pittsburgh, thus not deserving of the Title! I can't believe we're actually rebutting this, as it's THAT stupid and moronic.

I also hate the other year-by-year argument alluded to in the original post, the dreaded "Well, the TV commentators don't have anything meaningful to say right now, so we'll point out some statistical 'trend' that couldn't possibly factor into any substantive prediction regarding an eventual outcome." Pointing out that no team has ever come from a 3-0 hole in a best of 7 playoff in 30 years is relevant, but pointing out that there is no history of a twopeat in the recent past does not preclude or even give a strong probability against twopeating.

Haha, I agree 100 percent. I also loathe the statistics of "..when the Raiders lead by .34567's of a point with 5 minutes and 12 seconds left in the first quarter, and when the Quarterback only gets sacked once and the leading halfback rushes for 50 or more yards, they are 18-2 in this situation.." I always found that to be hysterical.

[Enigma869]

Dude this is a fucking stupid explanation. What makes you think that everyone has to go through the Patriots to be a worthy Super Bowl Champion? Last time I checked, New England failed to make the playoffs last season, and even lost the Super Bowl to the Giants the year before, so they hold 0 water when saying something as retarded as 'they didn't get past New England!" What a dumbass. Point of the matter is, the Giants were the Super Bowl champions last year, the year before that it was Indianapolis, and the year before that was Pittsburgh. New England shouldn't even be in the picture of the conversation when talking about getting through teams. If anything, since the Steelers didn't face the champion Giants to get their crown, then maybe they don't deserve it. Sorry dude, the NFL or any sport don't work that way.

The Steelers manhandled New England last year in the regular season, so they did take care of New England when they had a chance to do so. According to your logic, just because the Steelers didn't play the Lions last year, or the Bears, and since they weren't 'forced to play those teams' they shouldn't be taken so seriously as Champions? What if the Steelers, or Colts, or Bronco's win the Superbowl in 2015 and got there by not playing New England.. would your blabble still hold that they aren't worthy because they weren't forced to play them? You need to find other ways to manipulate because that argument just makes you look bad.

Listen Dildo Boy...I never said that the Steelers "had" to go through the Patriots. My larger point was that in spite of the Patriots losing in the Super Bowl to the Giants the last time Brady was healthy, they still had a team that was 16-0. Also, in spite of your statement "New England failed to make the playoffs last season", it doesn't change the fact that they won 11 games with Matt fucking Cassel! That tells me that they're a team who will be in the mix. It also tells me that Pittsburgh may or may not have gotten to the Super Bowl last season. I don't predict who is going to win the Super Bowl before the season starts. The truth is that if the Patriots don't find some guys who can play defense this season, they may not win 10 games! I will predict that Brady isn't done yet and will win at least one more Super Bowl in the next three seasons!

[Enigma869]

Then what the fuck do you call the italicized and bolded parts?!?!

Sorry dude...it wasn't a contradiction. I did indeed say that I don't go by statistics and made my argument by stating that if you examine the statistics, they really don't tell the whole story. Most teams in the NFL who win games appear to have a running game. In 2007, the Patriots were just out of the top 10 in the league in rushing yards, and Brady threw for 50 flippin' touchdowns, so I'm quite sure they weren't much of a running team, in spite of what the stats say! Last year, the Patriots ranked an astonishing 6th in the NFL in rushing, and I don't think anyone who watches football outside of New England has any idea who any of their running backs are! Just for perspective, the Vikings (With Adrian Peterson) ranked just ahead of the Patriots in 5th place (they had about 3 more yards per game than the Patriots had on the ground)for most rushing yards per game and San Diego and Tomlinson were ranked a putrid 20th! Rushing yards per game are almost always a product of winning teams, and not outstanding running backs. There are obviously some exceptions, but teams who win are in control and they control the game by running the ball! You don't need a stud running back to run the ball. It's all about the game situation and the team around you. It's not just a coincidence that most of the top teams in the NFL usually average in the top third of the league in rushing statistics. I have never believed that they win because they run the football (in some cases that is obviously true). I have watched enough football to understand that it's because teams are winning that they're running the ball and the Patriots' running statistics over the past several years proves that point better than anything! Fuck all this debate...Just bring on the NFL season so I can watch Pittsburgh and their annoying shit paper waving fans get their hearts crushed. Hopefully, I can end the season by wiping my ass with an ass-ugly yellow puke towel

[YoungJRNY]

Dude this is a fucking stupid explanation. What makes you think that everyone has to go through the Patriots to be a worthy Super Bowl Champion? Last time I checked, New England failed to make the playoffs last season, and even lost the Super Bowl to the Giants the year before, so they hold 0 water when saying something as retarded as 'they didn't get past New England!" What a dumbass. Point of the matter is, the Giants were the Super Bowl champions last year, the year before that it was Indianapolis, and the year before that was Pittsburgh. New England shouldn't even be in the picture of the conversation when talking about getting through teams. If anything, since the Steelers didn't face the champion Giants to get their crown, then maybe they don't deserve it. Sorry dude, the NFL or any sport don't work that way.

The Steelers manhandled New England last year in the regular season, so they did take care of New England when they had a chance to do so. According to your logic, just because the Steelers didn't play the Lions last year, or the Bears, and since they weren't 'forced to play those teams' they shouldn't be taken so seriously as Champions? What if the Steelers, or Colts, or Bronco's win the Superbowl in 2015 and got there by not playing New England.. would your blabble still hold that they aren't worthy because they weren't forced to play them? You need to find other ways to manipulate because that argument just makes you look bad.

Listen Dildo Boy...I never said that the Steelers "had" to go through the Patriots. My larger point was that in spite of the Patriots losing in the Super Bowl to the Giants the last time Brady was healthy, they still had a team that was 16-0. Also, in spite of your statement "New England failed to make the playoffs last season", it doesn't change the fact that they won 11 games with Matt fucking Cassel! That tells me that they're a team who will be in the mix. It also tells me that Pittsburgh may or may not have gotten to the Super Bowl last season. I don't predict who is going to win the Super Bowl before the season starts. The truth is that if the Patriots don't find some guys who can play defense this season, they may not win 10 games! I will predict that Brady isn't done yet and will win at least one more Super Bowl in the next three seasons!

Dildo boy, what are we 10? You are contradicting yourself post after post. If you keep this contradiction up at this rate, then you won't be worthy to be in such a thread. Where to start..

This is EXACTLY what you said and I quote..

Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there.

What exactly does "They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get the Super Bowl" even mean then? It certainly wasn't 'because they still had a team that went 16-0." You were just stating your diarrhea out the mouth that the Steelers got lucky because they didn't have to face New England, PERIOD. Besides, going 16-0 proves JACK SHIT in the NFL during the regular season. Going 11-5 and not being able to hold off Miami proves there's something wrong in New England, Bradyless or not. The Browns went 10-6 in 2007 and missed the playoffs by one game. The next year they completely folded on themselves with the same team. Going 11-5 the previous season proves nothing to how a team will do that next year according to your logic some, couple posts ago.

That tells me that they're a team who will be in the mix. It also tells me that Pittsburgh may or may not have gotten to the Super Bowl last season. I don't predict who is going to win the Super Bowl before the season starts. The truth is that if the Patriots don't find some guys who can play defense this season, they may not win 10 games! I will predict that Brady isn't done yet and will win at least one more Super Bowl in the next three seasons!

How could you make such bold predictions and claim that 'things tell you' when you just said in an earlier post that any 2009 team hasn't shown or done shit yet? Even though you can't claim that Pittsburgh is a better 2009 team than New England because you've 'haven't seen either team play a single game' but turn around and predict that Brady will win a Super Bowl in the next 3 seasons?! Holy shit dude, you're good.

My opinion, Brady isn't getting any younger, and with a MAJOR injury that took him out the WHOLE 2008 season, and since New England's window of opportunity is closing since teams in the AFC EAST are somewhat learning how to play football, it would be absurd to make such a prediction based on your own logic there, pal.

[Saint John]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

[YoungJRNY]

Then what the fuck do you call the italicized and bolded parts?!?!

Sorry dude...it wasn't a contradiction. I did indeed said that I don't go by statistics and made my argument by stating if you examine the statistics, they really don't tell the whole story. Most teams in the NFL who win games appear to have a running game. In 2007, the Patriots were just out of the top 10 in the league in rushing yards, and Brady threw for 50 flippin' touchdowns, so I'm quite sure they weren't much of a running team, in spite of what the stats say! Last year, the Patriots ranked 6th in the NFL in rushing, and I don't think anyone who watches football outside of New England has any idea who any of their running backs are! Just for perspective, the Vikings (With Adrian Peterson) ranked just ahead of the Patriots in 5th place (they had about 3 more yards per game than the Patriots had on the ground)for most rushing yards per game and San Diego and Tomlinson were ranked a putrid 20th! Rushing yards per game are almost always a product of winning teams, and not outstanding running backs. There are obviously some exceptions, but teams who win are in control and they control the game by running the ball! You don't need a stud running back to run the ball. It's all about the game situation and the team around you. It's not just a coincidence that the top teams in the NFL usually average in the top third of the league in rushing statistics. I have never believed that they win because they run the football (in some cases that is obviously true). I have watched enough football to understand that it's because teams are winning that they're running the ball and the Patriots' running statistics over the past several years proves that point better than anything! Fuck all this debate...Just bring on the NFL season so I can watch Pittsburgh and their annoying shit paper waving fans get their hearts crushed. Hopefully, I can end the season by wiping my ass with an ass-ugly yellow puke towel

Just bring on the NFL season so I can watch Pittsburgh and their annoying shit paper waving fans get their hearts crushed. Hopefully, I can end the season by wiping my ass with an ass-ugly yellow puke towel

You could only wish you could have such tradition that of the Pittsburgh Steelers and their fan base. The only tradition and pride you can go by is cheating your way through championships, and blowing a perfect season by losing in Superbowl 42 and throwing snow up in the air! Nice collapse of all time "dildo boy!" I'm sure the kids in Nigeria are enjoying those 19-0 Championship shirts! I can't wait to see Marsha Brady fall flat on her face this season. Good luck stepping up in the pocket with that lead leg, girl. You better hope you won't have to face a team like Pittsburgh late in the season.. if you even come close to getting there!

[YoungJRNY]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

[Enigma869]

If you keep this contradiction up at this rate, then you won't be worthy to be in such a thread.

Luckily for me, I don't need, nor do I seek your approval as to whether or not my opinions make me "worthy" to be in this or any other thread! I've been around here longer than you've been here and have socks older than you!

This is EXACTLY what you said and I quote..

Who gives a fuck what they won last year! It couldn't be less relevant. They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl, and they faced the woeful Cardinals when they got there.

What exactly does "They weren't forced to play the Patriots to get the Super Bowl" even mean then?

It's not too difficult to figure out, Einstein. In my opinion, had the Steelers been forced to play a Brady-led Patriots team in the playoffs, I don't think they would have beat them, period! If the Patriots can win 11 games with Matt Cassel, I'm fairly certain that Brady would have been good for at least another 3 wins and certainly would have been a factor in the playoffs. Listen...I really don't give a fuck about last year. It's over, and the Steelers won. Good for them. This is a new season, and I couldn't be more ready to get it started!

Besides, going 16-0 proves JACK SHIT in the NFL during the regular season.

It proves to me that they were a pretty good team, and losing to the Giants on some crazy fluke catch to a shitty receiver doesn't mean that their team was any less of a team. It's the NFL. Any team can win one single game! I'm not saying the Giants didn't deserve to win, because they did. I'm simply saying that the 16-0 Patriots team doesn't all of a sudden suck, because they lost one single game!

My opinion, Brady isn't getting any younger, and with a MAJOR injury that took him out the WHOLE 2008 season, and since New England's window of opportunity is closing since teams in the AFC EAST are somewhat learning how to play football, it would be absurd to make such a prediction based on your own logic there, pal.

Listen "pal", just because Brady had a major injury doesn't mean the Patriots aren't ever going to win another game. They won 11 games without him last season! I'm fully cognizant of the fact that he isn't going to play forever and that the Patriots will indeed suck again someday. It just won't be in the next couple of years!

[Saint John]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

lol...I've never seen a picture of JFB nor heard a description, but I always have this mental picture of a 6'4 260 pound guy behind the keyboard slamming Red Bull with a ruby red face as he pounds the keys while using an ! at the end of virtually every sentence. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but the fucker is a card.

[YoungJRNY]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

lol...I've never seen a picture of JFB nor heard a description, but I always have this mental picture of a 6'4 260 pound guy behind the keyboard slamming Red Bull with a ruby red face as he pounds the keys while using an ! at the end of virtually every sentence. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but the fucker is a card.

He may look like this: /

This is John's 5th replacement keyboard since returning.

[YoungJRNY]

and losing to the Giants on some crazy fluke catch to a shitty receiver

Kind of like the same fluke ruling that came about the "Tuck rule"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BC ... L&index=41

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-bsUB8M ... 2&index=43
^^ Check out JFB: 1:50 in this link.

[YoungJRNY]

I've been around here longer than you've been here and have socks older than you!

HAHA, you are the "Brett Favre" of MR.

Good thread, ladies and gentleman.. good thread.

[Saint John]

and losing to the Giants on some crazy fluke catch to a shitty receiver doesn't mean that their team was any less of a team.

It just means they didn't have a video of that play.

[YoungJRNY]

and losing to the Giants on some crazy fluke catch to a shitty receiver doesn't mean that their team was any less of a team.

It just means they didn't have a video of that play.

<< A new avatar in the making?

[Ehwmatt]

[Rockindeano]

I've been around here longer than you've been here and have socks older than you!

HAHA, you are the "Brett Favre" of MR.

Good thread, ladies and gentleman.. good thread.

Do NOT fuck with Brett Favre. Guy is a living legend.

[Saint John]

lol...the picture that Ehwmatt posted is McNeice is 10 years.

[Don]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

lol...I've never seen a picture of JFB nor heard a description, but I always have this mental picture of a 6'4 260 pound guy behind the keyboard slamming Red Bull with a ruby red face as he pounds the keys while using an ! at the end of virtually every sentence. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but the fucker is a card.

I think I saw him on Facebook. He looks 6'+ and appears to be built like a linebacker (maybe 250 lbs?). If it was him, he looks just like I thought he would.

[Ehwmatt]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

lol...I've never seen a picture of JFB nor heard a description, but I always have this mental picture of a 6'4 260 pound guy behind the keyboard slamming Red Bull with a ruby red face as he pounds the keys while using an ! at the end of virtually every sentence. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but the fucker is a card.

I think I saw him on Facebook. He looks 6'+ and appears to be built like a linebacker (maybe 250 lbs?). If it was him, he looks just like I thought he would.

Pretty sure he's a big dude, I think I've seen him describe himself on here 6'3 220+ or something.

[YoungJRNY]

Listen Dildo Boy

Ok...this made me laugh.

So did the rest of his post.

lol...I've never seen a picture of JFB nor heard a description, but I always have this mental picture of a 6'4 260 pound guy behind the keyboard slamming Red Bull with a ruby red face as he pounds the keys while using an ! at the end of virtually every sentence. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but the fucker is a card.

I think I saw him on Facebook. He looks 6'+ and appears to be built like a linebacker (maybe 250 lbs?). If it was him, he looks just like I thought he would.

Pretty sure he's a big dude, I think I've seen him describe himself on here 6'3 220+ or something.

Yeah he's said numerous times he's either 6'3 or 6'4 225 +. He's a football coach also I think he said. (Could you imagine him coaching his players? "No Penetration, Dildo boy!" "Hey asshole! break down and tackle you puke!" "False start? Get that moron off the team!" "That was the worst first half I've ever seen! Putrid! I'm going to make you dicks run gasers after this you stupid, fraud's!"

Even though he's possibly the hottest head ever to hit the internet, I enjoy John's company, even though he is a pussy Patriots' fan. It must be football season since we but heads and will continue to. I have respect for the dude and like when he's around. He knows his shit and is a challenge in debating the simplest thing.

JFB playing video games as a child: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwtBWeSZ3YQ