10-6 for 2010?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : 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....   :)
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii


    OK, Bubba, I'll chaulk it up to boredom and you need a football fix, soon!  Can't blame you, baseball puts me to sleep, NBA means nothing until the last two minutes of a game and the post season is wayyyyy tooooooo looooonnnggggg.  Hockey, well, the Bruins are surprising folks!
     
  2. 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?:
    Ummmm...We finished 10-6 last year.  Here's what's new... - We're without Welker (arguably our second best player on the entire roster) for god knows how long.  - The Jets and Dolphins made significant upgrades this offseason. Even the Bills are improved. - We used our 1st round pick on a gunner.  So if we're 10-6 last year, and weaker this year, and our division rivals are stronger, how does that translate into 16-0 or 13-3 or even 10-6? 9-7 is most likely, and we could easily be 8-8. 
    Posted by John413


    LOL!  Nice try....jets and miami have made improvements in some areas, they have also downgraded or lost players in other areas....So have they improved overall, NO.  Nobody has.  The Pats have also improved in some areas as well with minimal losses.....So I am not sure how you came up with your "we are weaker this year and our division rivals are stronger" statment......it makes NO SENSE.  Sounds like an over reaction to me.....
     
  3. 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? : 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?
    Posted by m1021us


    I figure because based on the information provided teams that went to the playoffs last year have a greater chance of making that playoffs (50%) than the NFL team population as a whole (25%).  If playoff teams are generally considered better than non-playoff teams then the pats playing half their season against these teams would make their schedule difficult in relation to a team that may only play 4 playoff teams.  Capiche?

    We were talking about the pats playing 8 playoff teams - we were also talking hypothetically about any team playing a playoff team. 
     
  4. 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 call it like I see it.....if you don't like it, post elsewhere.....
    Posted by m1021us


    Me too!  Rather than go elsewhere, I prefer to stay here and talk with you about the frequency with which you do not look so smart amidst your "dumb/stupid" shots directed at others.
     
  5. 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? : Me too!  Rather than go elsewhere, I prefer to stay here and talk with you about the frequency with which you do not look so smart amidst your "dumb/stupid" shots directed at others.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Huh?  You mean my accurate analysis based on other posters lack of football knowledge and letting them know that?    You being one of such persons?
     
  6. 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? : 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....
    Posted by m1021us


    No need.  They've been all over the place and frankly I don't really care all that much.  The only reason that I even noticed is that you are the one calling everyone else dumb and stupid.  I figured that you would take more care given your desire trash others.  Then again, maybe you are the one who deserves the ridicule. 

    I already told you that I knew what you meant to say.  The problem is that you didn't say it.  I have no idea whether or not you actually knew that parody was not parity.  The words have very similar pronouciations.  So again, (the horse is nearly dead) given your describe others as stupid or dumb, I thought you might not want to appear to others the way you describe them.  Its a credibility issue. 
     
  7. 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 figure because based on the information provided teams that went to the playoffs last year have a greater chance of making that playoffs (50%) than the NFL team population as a whole (25%).  If playoff teams are generally considered better than non-playoff teams then the pats playing half their season against these teams would make their schedule difficult in relation to a team that may only play 4 playoff teams.  Capiche? We were talking about the pats playing 8 playoff teams - we were also talking hypothetically about any team playing a playoff team. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    You said that a team that made the playoffs last year has a 50% chance (but more like a 25% chance) of making it again this year.....right?


    Are you trying to tell me that it doesn't matter much if you are playing a team that went to the playoffs last year? 

     
  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?:
    Ummmm...We finished 10-6 last year.  Here's what's new... - We're without Welker (arguably our second best player on the entire roster) for god knows how long.  - The Jets and Dolphins made significant upgrades this offseason. Even the Bills are improved. - We used our 1st round pick on a gunner.  So if we're 10-6 last year, and weaker this year, and our division rivals are stronger, how does that translate into 16-0 or 13-3 or even 10-6? 9-7 is most likely, and we could easily be 8-8. 
    Posted by John413


    John - sorry I wasn't around to forewarn you M1021us does not care for people who make predictions (although he is on record as saying the pats will go 16-0).  You got off easy, because he did not call you dumb or stupid, but if you keep it up just know it may happen. 

    I'd say to you this - you have to expect some of your young players to improve.  That said, the vets that have not delivered cannot necessarily be expected to get any better.  I am inclined to agree with you at this time.
     
  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? : No need.  They've been all over the place and frankly I don't really care all that much.  The only reason that I even noticed is that you are the one calling everyone else dumb and stupid.  I figured that you would take more care given your desire trash others.  Then again, maybe you are the one who deserves the ridicule.  I already told you that I knew what you meant to say.  The problem is that you didn't say it.  I have no idea whether or not you actually knew that parody was not parity.  The words have very similar pronouciations.  So again, (the horse is nearly dead) given your describe others as stupid or dumb, I thought you might not want to appear to others the way you describe them.  Its a credibility issue. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    LOL!  All because I spelled a word wrong!  Wow!

    I have already shown you that you had spelled 2 words wrong (1 of the twice!), so according to you...that makes you less credible than I when it comes to calling people out.....

    So, either I meant to say parody, or misspelled parity?  Which is it?

    Since when does misspelling a word mean that someone is smarter or not when it comes to football?
     
  10. 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? : Huh?  You mean my accurate analysis based on other posters lack of football knowledge and letting them know that?    You being one of such persons?
    Posted by m1021us


    Um, no.  Your opinion of yourself is significantly higher than what you actually deliver.  Maybe you could use some therapy.
     
  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? : John - sorry I wasn't around to forewarn you M1021us does not care for people who make predictions (although he is on record as saying the pats will go 16-0).  You got off easy, because he did not call you dumb or stupid, but if you keep it up just know it may happen.  I'd say to you this - you have to expect some of your young players to improve.  That said, the vets that have not delivered cannot necessarily be expected to get any better.  I am inclined to agree with you at this time.
    Posted by underdoggg


    you are just upset because you do not meet up to my standards....keep studying.

    that 16-0 prediction was tongue-in-cheek, As I have said before, it is impossible to make any accurate predictions based on how the teams are currently set up....
     
  12. 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? : Um, no.  Your opinion of yourself is significantly higher than what you actually deliver.  Maybe you could use some therapy.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Nah, i am fine.....but the fact that I don't over react like many foolish children on this board and make utterly ridiculous predictions when 1/3 of the player are not on the teams yet, makes me smarter and less needy of such therapy....

     
  13. 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? : LOL!  All because I spelled a word wrong!  Wow! I have already shown you that you had spelled 2 words wrong (1 of the twice!), so according to you...that makes you less credible than I when it comes to calling people out..... So, either I meant to say parody, or misspelled parity?  Which is it? Since when does misspelling a word mean that someone is smarter or not when it comes to football?
    Posted by m1021us

    No No No.  There are plenty of reasons.  You've littered the board with evidence of your lack of credibility.  I wouldn't expect you to understand.  You are far too full of yourself.  I just thought you would appreciate for future reference knowing that you used the wrong word (you didn't misspell anything.  Parody was spelled correctly) given your strong feelings of self worth and how your love of questionning the intelligence of others doesn't jibe too well when do it.  I accepted long ago that this might be a long process.  You've brainwashed yourself into thinking your sh*t doesn't stink and the deprogramming takes a while. 

    Like I said, I've done it myself and been corrected, and I am thankful for it.  It didn't take long for it to sink in with me though.  I respect others. 
     
  14. 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? : You said that a team that made the playoffs last year has a 50% chance (but more like a 25% chance) of making it again this year.....right? Are you trying to tell me that it doesn't matter much if you are playing a team that went to the playoffs last year? 
    Posted by m1021us


    I suggest you go back and read. 
     
  15. 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? : Nah, i am fine.....but the fact that I don't over react like many foolish children on this board and make utterly ridiculous predictions when 1/3 of the player are not on the teams yet, makes me smarter and less needy of such therapy....
    Posted by m1021us


    So the pats are replacing 18 players from their active roster?
     
  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? : So the pats are replacing 18 players from their active roster?
    Posted by underdoggg


    See, nobody knows!
     
  17. 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 suggest you go back and read. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    You would have had a better shot using SOS......pretty close to the same thing.  Meaningless either way.
     
  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? : See, nobody knows!
    Posted by m1021us


    Not according to you.  You said you did.
     
  19. 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? : No No No.  There are plenty of reasons.  You've littered the board with evidence of your lack of credibility.  I wouldn't expect you to understand.  You are far too full of yourself.  I just thought you would appreciate for future reference knowing that you used the wrong word (you didn't misspell anything.  Parody was spelled correctly) given your strong feelings of self worth and how your love of questionning the intelligence of others doesn't jibe too well when do it.  I accepted long ago that this might be a long process.  You've brainwashed yourself into thinking your sh*t doesn't stink and the deprogramming takes a while.  Like I said, I've done it myself and been corrected, and I am thankful for it.  It didn't take long for it to sink in with me though.  I respect others. 
    Posted by underdoggg


    LOL!  You catually made me laugh with your post....that was good.

    And I call BS!  You don't respect any of us, you and your POC other user ID comeon here TROLLING the Pats board with insulting posts trying to get a rise out of the good people of New England.

    Looks like you are full of yourself.....Again, your credibility is long gone.

    Nice try.

    You are upset with me because you come on here thinking that you know everything...and I bring you back down to size....I understand why you are upset....it is a maturity issue...grow up.
     
  20. 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? : You would have had a better shot using SOS......pretty close to the same thing.  Meaningless either way.
    Posted by m1021us


    LOL
     
  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? : Not according to you.  You said you did.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Ok, the pats have 13 draft picks.....and had 16 free agents....could be more than 18, could be less than 18.....I was using 1/3 as a guess.....but I figured that you could figure it out on your own without any help, I guessed wrong.  My bad.
     
  22. 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? : LOL!  You catually made me laugh with your post....that was good. And I call BS!  You don't respect any of us, you and your POC other user ID comeon here TROLLING the Pats board with insulting posts trying to get a rise out of the good people of New England. Looks like you are full of yourself.....Again, your credibility is long gone. Nice try. You are upset with me because you come on here thinking that you know everything...and I bring you back down to size....I understand why you are upset....it is a maturity issue...grow up.
    Posted by m1021us


    Of all there is to know - I can admit that I know very little.  I accept that that is difficult for you. 

    And honestly, I have no need to insult the good people of New England, you've done that all by yourself and with a zeal most televangelists would sell their souls for (if, of course, they've not already).   

    I am the one defending your good people.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kansaspatriot. Show kansaspatriot's posts

    Re: 10-6 for 2010?

    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010?:
    In Response to Re: 10-6 for 2010? : Of all there is to know - I can admit that I know very little.  I accept that that is difficult for you.  And honestly, I have no need to insult the good people of New England, you've done that all by yourself and with a zeal most televangelists would sell their souls for (if, of course, they've not already).    I am the one defending your good people.
    Posted by underdoggg


    you still flapping your gums? what happened coltsbabe breakup with you?
     
  24. 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? : Ok, the pats have 13 draft picks.....and had 16 free agents....could be more than 18, could be less than 18.....I was using 1/3 as a guess.....but I figured that you could figure it out on your own without any help, I guessed wrong.  My bad.
    Posted by m1021us


    Well first we were talking about the entire league and not just the pats.  Still, I'll go out on a limb and say that the pats will employ at least 35 of the 53 they finished the year with. 

    See, I don't mind making predictions especially when conventional wisdom indicates that I will be right.  I am not either dumb or stupid with this.  I just use the plentiful context clues that are available to do so.  You, on the other hand, are too much of a p*ssy to do so. 

    If I end up being wrong, so be it.  What have I lost?  Nothing of value.  I just made a prediction about football.  Its not all that important, but it is fun, except, of course, where you are involved.  You just want to suc*k the fun out of it. 
     

Share