minnesotacubsfan
-
Posts
25,057 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by minnesotacubsfan
-
ok John Madden
-
I had Seattle winning today, but I figured it would be rainy and they would win 17-14 or some crap. that shootout was nuts. everyone here is wearing green jerseys. If the Bears get them, they better beat them. I wont live it down if they dont but I like our chances.
-
Sanchez looks horrible
-
Lynch's run was just a thundering heard amazing
-
GO PHILADELPHIA!!! (I think)
-
ruh-ro Seattle, the wheels seem to have fallen off the wagon
-
I'm beginning to worry about these SeaHoks. they've already beat us once, and now they are plowing through the Saints. yikes
-
I would not have taken the SeaHoks in a shootout. I thought maybe some rain, off day by Brees, and the Seattle had a chance, but this is nuts
-
holy catshit
-
Bob Costas hasn't changed in 25 years
-
BECAUSE ITS [expletive] SWEET TO BE A GOLDEN GOPHER also, the SeaHoks could really pull this off
-
Big Pimpin' Timmy
-
no like tim brewster Timmy was awesome.
-
you mean like Ron Zook?
-
oh, and the Redskins fumbles were the will of God who is a Packer fan, and the Johnson bit was just bad officiating. neither were luck of any kind.
-
where he kicked the ball lent itself to luck the Packers have avoided leaving their games at the hands of chance better than most every other team (i.e. blowout wins), but the games they weren't able to, they fared terribly (2-6 record in games decided by less than a TD). aberrations like these are why smart people don't lean very hard on W-L record this should really be obvious common sense stuff, i'm being trolled so hard right now and for some reason i'm still feeding it being trolled? I just dont agree with your reasoning here. and bad execution is exactly what leads to losses, not bad luck that's really just an easy dismissal of a complex situation it wasn't really bad execution that prevented the Bears from falling on any of the Redskins five fumbles not lost and it wasn't good execution on the Bears part to will Calvin Johnson to "not complete the process of a catch", that's just dumb luck stuff i was mostly joking about the troll comment I was deeply hurt by that comment. my co-workers want to know why I'm crying
-
maybe he's just terrified of playing for Carolina, doesn't believe its a good fit for him.
-
where he kicked the ball lent itself to luck the Packers have avoided leaving their games at the hands of chance better than most every other team (i.e. blowout wins), but the games they weren't able to, they fared terribly (2-6 record in games decided by less than a TD). aberrations like these are why smart people don't lean very hard on W-L record this should really be obvious common sense stuff, i'm being trolled so hard right now and for some reason i'm still feeding it being trolled? I just dont agree with your reasoning here. and bad execution is exactly what leads to losses, not bad luck
-
I'm beginning to think I should be the kicker for GB. its all chance, really, and it pays better then my current position.
-
my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS Crosby has no control over not kicking it at the goal post in the first point? this isn't just "bad luck"
-
all of them, because McCarthy would have chosen them to.
-
The Packers lost those 6 games by a combined 20 points. Has there been a team in history whose average margin of defeat was lower? Really? Is that a real question? I'll just give you some of the easy-math answers: 1984 49ers: 3 1998 Vikings: 3 1985 Bears: 14 2004 Steelers: 17 This year's Ravens lost 4 games by a combined 16 points, so they were right there with the Packers in margin of defeat. Average margin of defeat is what I am going for. I realize there might be some 15-1 team that lost a game by 3 points, but I guess that's not really the same since the Packers had 6 losses. so, the more loses you have, the better (or at least more acceptable) your average margin of defeat becomes? or is 6 a magic number? I'm so confused....I keep thinking its better to win games then to lose them.
-
ha! he probably should. but I don't think the 162 vs 16 game argument is necessarily null and void. I think it becomes more applicable to baseball then it does football because of the instances (or games played). It could also suggest that a fluke year by a team is more likely to show as an anomaly in the statistics due to untimely bad decisions that cause more losses. aka, the packers statistics suggest they are very good, but their coach makes very poor decisions and they lose a lot. That doesn't project that they will do well in the playoffs, but it does explain that at some point, their coach will likely make a catastrophic decision (or series of decisions) and they will lose despite their amazing statistics..
-
they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN) Oh. Then the losses don't count. you're being purposefully dense. nowhere did i suggest that. why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]? 162 games vs 16 games. SAMPLE SIZE also, McCarthy is amazing as choking, according to our Packer brethren.
-
I agree with you on this
