10-6 for 2010?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    I'm confused.

    Which one of you guys is rubber, and which one is glue?



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    Hey pmike - just cleaning out the closets.  Do you have a prediction at this point for the pats next year?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    Ok, fans can be fans, but, Bubba, how can anyone try and predict the 2010 season record BEFORE the draft has occurred, before the roster is set, before pre-season?  It's one thing to have opinions about your team, but to guess as much about how the other teams will fare prior to the season opening, wow, more power to you! 

    Do you pick PowerBall and MegaMillions numbrs, too?  Now that would be supah!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    Hey pmike - just cleaning out the closets.  Do you have a prediction at this point for the pats next year?
    Posted by underdoggg


    Next year?

    Ummm . . .

    I predict that, with a handful of key exceptions, I have no idea who will even be on the team next year.



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Aw, how cute....the trolls are sticking up for each other......
    Posted by m1021us


    LOL at you using the word troll.  You have been on here less than 4 months and have nearly 1300 posts.   Now that's troll stats, IMO. 

    Read your posts again, you just don't make any sense. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    I'm confused. Which one of you guys is rubber, and which one is glue?
    Posted by p-mike


    Interchangeable?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    Ok, fans can be fans, but, Bubba, how can anyone try and predict the 2010 season record BEFORE the draft has occurred, before the roster is set, before pre-season?  It's one thing to have opinions about your team, but to guess as much about how the other teams will fare prior to the season opening, wow, more power to you!  Do you pick PowerBall and MegaMillions numbrs, too?  Now that would be supah!
    Posted by agcsbill


    AGCSBILL,  You need to read the original post again.  I justified it by saying that I'll probably feel better AFTER the draft.  Besides, it's off-season and I was bored. I mean, let's be serious - whenever I make predictions - they're generally wrong anyways :) Doesn't really matter when I makem....lol.

    Nostradamus made predictions before the NFL draft....   :)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Here is something else that irks me......Last year's playoff teams means nothing...SOS based on last year is meaningless....these teams have changed since then.....it is a new year and what happened last year is gone.
    Posted by m1021us


    Ok - so I said I would respond to the inaccuracy of this post.  I have stated that a team may have a tough schedule this year because they are playing a number of teams from the playoffs the last year.  M10 called this meaningless due to parity (not parody, as he said).  

    Starting with the 2000 reg season, out of 108 teams (9 years in which we know a team made it to the playoffs the following year) - 51 or 47% of all playoff teams made the playoffs the following year.  There are another 21 teams who made it one year, not the next, but did the year after.  All this suggests is that generally a team that made the playoffs last year will still be a good team the following year with a 50% shot of making the playoffs the next year and an even better chance of making it in the next 2 years. 

    If a team has a lot of teams on their schedule that made the playoffs the prior year, the liklihood is that the schedule will be difficult.  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : LOL at you using the word troll.  You have been on here less than 4 months and have nearly 1300 posts.   Now that's troll stats, IMO.  Read your posts again, you just don't make any sense. 
    Posted by BradyMossFan


    LOL!  I am thinking that you have no clue on what a TROLL is....

    I have been on here for years...like you, my other ID got disabled....

    Sorry that you can't understand English....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Ok - so I said I would respond to the inaccuracy of this post.  I have stated that a team may have a tough schedule this year because they are playing a number of teams from the playoffs the last year.  M10 called this meaningless due to parity (not parody, as he said).   Starting with the 2000 reg season, out of 108 teams (9 years in which we know a team made it to the playoffs the following year) - 51 or 47% of all playoff teams made the playoffs the following year.  There are another 21 teams who made it one year, not the next, but did the year after.  All this suggests is that generally a team that made the playoffs last year will still be a good team the following year with a 50% shot of making the playoffs the next year and an even better chance of making it in the next 2 years.  If a team has a lot of teams on their schedule that made the playoffs the prior year, the liklihood is that the schedule will be difficult.  
    Posted by underdoggg


    Wow, a whopping 50%?!?!  So there is a chance that out of those 8 that made the playoffs last year, 4 won't be as good?  You do know that some make it by default because of a poor division (ex. SD with an 8-8 record 2 years ago) or because they backed into it(Jets last year)?

    I love how you have to harp on the rare mis-spelling that I have.....nice class.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Next year? Ummm . . . I predict that, with a handful of key exceptions, I have no idea who will even be on the team next year.
    Posted by p-mike


    Excellent post!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Wow, a whopping 50%?!?!  So there is a chance that out of those 8 that made the playoffs last year, 4 won't be as good?  You do know that some make it by default because of a poor division (ex. SD with an 8-8 record 2 years ago) or because they backed into it(Jets last year)? I love how you have to harp on the rare mis-spelling that I have.....nice class.
    Posted by m1021us

    Uh - first off - 12 teams make the playoffs.  6 teams will make it again and 6 teams will not.  The odds of 6 teams making the playoffs followin a year in the playoffs is much less than the actual 50% that has been demonstrated over the last decade.  Not only is this the case because there are 32 teams but also because the schedule and the draft are stacked against winners for the sake of parity. 

    Further, identifying the fact that at times teams miss the playoffs the following year only to show the next year indicates that the franchise is good enough but had a hiccup (ie the 2008 pats who went 11-5). 

    Using the Jets to refute my arguement doesn't work because they do not fit the standards for my arguement already.  If they go to the playoffs next year, however, they will.  Further, you want to attempt to refute my rebuttal by qualifying the conditions with "yeah buts" - (ie NYJ and SDC), but you can't do that.  There are no "yeah buts" in mine. 

    Here's more - over that 10 year period 12 teams played in 75 of the 120 playoffs spots that 63% of the games for 37% of the teams.  The fact is that generally good teams remain good while bad teams remain bad and then there are some in the middle. 

    So if a team has a lot of playoff teams on their schedule then it can accurately be considered a tough schedule.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    One last note - I have never considered myself a smart one on this board, but since you so frequently call people dumb or stupid, I thought you might like to know when you use the wrong word - not misspell (as you try to claim).  

    As for class - I pity you. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Uh - first off - 12 teams make the playoffs.  6 teams will make it again and 6 teams will not.  The odds of 6 teams making the playoffs followin a year in the playoffs is much less than the actual 50% that has been demonstrated over the last decade.  Not only is this the case because there are 32 teams but also because the schedule and the draft are stacked against winners for the sake of parity.  Further, identifying the fact that at times teams miss the playoffs the following year only to show the next year indicates that the franchise is good enough but had a hiccup (ie the 2008 pats who went 11-5).  Using the Jets to refute my arguement doesn't work because they do not fit the standards for my arguement already.  If they go to the playoffs next year, however, they will.  Further, you want to attempt to refute my rebuttal by qualifying the conditions with "yeah buts" - (ie NYJ and SDC), but you can't do that.  There are no "yeah buts" in mine.  Here's more - over that 10 year period 12 teams played in 75 of the 120 playoffs spots that 63% of the games for 37% of the teams.  The fact is that generally good teams remain good while bad teams remain bad and then there are some in the middle.  So if a team has a lot of playoff teams on their schedule then it can accurately be considered a tough schedule.
    Posted by underdoggg


    No Kidding!  I recall that the Pats are playing 8 of those teams this year, right?


    So now you are saying that the odds of a team repeating to making it to the playoffs is LESS than 50%....helps my case....

    The yeah buts count...you have yeah buts....I showed you....and the Pats in 2008 were a yeah but because of injury (something else that can't be anticipated)......

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    One last note - I have never considered myself a smart one on this board, but since you so frequently call people dumb or stupid, I thought you might like to know when you use the wrong word - not misspell (as you try to claim).   As for class - I pity you. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    I think that you forgot to log out of Underpoo and back into bradymoss before replying to this.....

    Trust me, only an idiot would think that I was using the wrong word......Just wanted to let you know that......But hey....if you want to act like you are 5, keep up the good work.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Uh - first off - 12 teams make the playoffs.  6 teams will make it again and 6 teams will not.  The odds of 6 teams making the playoffs followin a year in the playoffs is much less than the actual 50% that has been demonstrated over the last decade.  Not only is this the case because there are 32 teams but also because the schedule and the draft are stacked against winners for the sake of parity.  Further, identifying the fact that at times teams miss the playoffs the following year only to show the next year indicates that the franchise is good enough but had a hiccup (ie the 2008 pats who went 11-5).  Using the Jets to refute my arguement doesn't work because they do not fit the standards for my arguement already.  If they go to the playoffs next year, however, they will.  Further, you want to attempt to refute my rebuttal by qualifying the conditions with "yeah buts" - (ie NYJ and SDC), but you can't do that.  There are no "yeah buts" in mine.  Here's more - over that 10 year period 12 teams played in 75 of the 120 playoffs spots that 63% of the games for 37% of the teams.  The fact is that generally good teams remain good while bad teams remain bad and then there are some in the middle.  So if a team has a lot of playoff teams on their schedule then it can accurately be considered a tough schedule.
    Posted by underdoggg



    Since we are playing this game.....

    Followin?
    arguement? arguement?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : No Kidding!  I recall that the Pats are playing 8 of those teams this year, right? So now you are saying that the odds of a team repeating to making it to the playoffs is LESS than 50%....helps my case.... The yeah buts count...you have yeah buts....I showed you....and the Pats in 2008 were a yeah but because of injury (something else that can't be anticipated)......
    Posted by m1021us

    I wasn't kidding -  you did not indicate that you were talking specifically about the patriots.  As for a playoff team having a 50% chance of making it the following year when the odds are actually about 25% hurts your case significantly.  

    And your "yeah buts" are subjective excuses not reasons. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : I think that you forgot to log out of Underpoo and back into bradymoss before replying to this..... Trust me, only an idiot would think that I was using the wrong word......Just wanted to let you know that......But hey....if you want to act like you are 5, keep up the good work.
    Posted by m1021us


    If you are Jim Jones follower, I mean Huggybear, then you would think this. 

    I knew what word you wanted to use but didn't.  I thought for future reference you would like to know, especially considering how frequently you like to call others dumb and stupid. 

    And if you think that I am acting like I am 5 by correcting your word usage, you might want to consider how frequently you call people dumb and stupid.  Who's childish?  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Since we are playing this game..... Followin? arguement? arguement?
    Posted by m1021us


    Thank you - the differences between you and I are many. 

    1.  I am not the one calling everyone else dumb and stupid.  That is you.  So when you eff up, it becomes glaring. 

    2.  I have not ever corrected your spelling mistakes which are frequent like you are now with me.  Misspellings are one thing, and given that is a chat board, no one really cares - even if you are calling everyone dumb and stupid.  

    3.  On the other hand, when you use the wrong word (with an entirely different meaning) than was intended just because it is pronounced the same way, given that you like to call others dumb and stupid, it deserved recognition.  

    We are very very different my friend.   
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    Cliff Clavin Little-Known Fact of the Day:  Misspelled is one of the most frequently misspelled words in the English language.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : I wasn't kidding -  you did not indicate that you were talking specifically about the patriots.  As for a playoff team having a 50% chance of making it the following year when the odds are actually about 25% hurts your case significantly.   And your "yeah buts" are subjective excuses not reasons. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    How do you figure?  The Pats are playing 8 playoff teams that have a 25% chance of making it to the playoffs potentially makes their schedule EASIER, not harder like you are saying.....

    Weren't we talking about the Pats playing 8 playoff teams this year?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : If you are Jim Jones follower, I mean Huggybear, then you would think this.  I knew what word you wanted to use but didn't.  I thought for future reference you would like to know, especially considering how frequently you like to call others dumb and stupid.  And if you think that I am acting like I am 5 by correcting your word usage, you might want to consider how frequently you call people dumb and stupid.  Who's childish?  
    Posted by underdoggg


    I call it like I see it.....if you don't like it, post elsewhere.....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Thank you - the differences between you and I are many.  1.  I am not the one calling everyone else dumb and stupid.  That is you.  So when you eff up, it becomes glaring.  2.  I have not ever corrected your spelling mistakes which are frequent like you are now with me.  Misspellings are one thing, and given that is a chat board, no one really cares - even if you are calling everyone dumb and stupid.   3.  On the other hand, when you use the wrong word (with an entirely different meaning) than was intended, given that you like to call others dumb and stupid, it deserved recognition.   We are very very different my friend.   
    Posted by underdoggg


    LOL!  You are one funny character.....please feel free to find my spelling mistakes....they are few and far between....trust me.

    The dumb and stupid comments are in refrence to the lack of football intellect from the posters that are addressed....not their spelling mistakes.  I would have to include you as one of those said persons.....

    You actually think that I meant to say that the league is a parody? as in parody: to imitate poorly or feebly; travesty.
    I guess you could say that there are teams that try to immitate greatness and many teams do fail....
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : LOL!  I am thinking that you have no clue on what a TROLL is.... I have been on here for years...like you, my other ID got disabled.... Sorry that you can't understand English....
    Posted by m1021us


    I never had my ID disabled and I can now see why your have.  BTW, I'm in tears laughing as Underdoggg is owning you on here!  Keep up the great work!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : I never had my ID disabled and I can now see why your have.  BTW, I'm in tears laughing as Underdoggg is owning you on here!  Keep up the great work!
    Posted by BradyMossFan


    LOL!  2 peas in a pod....or the same poster.....that is a good one!

    You and Underpoo are either the same poster, OR both Colts fans.....

    Just make sre you keep a box of tissues next to you at all times.....
     

Share