soccer10k

Crap.

It's a tough world isn't it?

Thank you OKSt.

Great play by Alabama. It's always funny to see offensive linemen catch the ball and even better when they get to run with it.

Well, their punt returner doesn't.

Alabama sucks.

Because they have nothing to play for while the Packers do.

You don't have to completely dominate a game to win it.

I could see the Seahawks "manning up", as you put it, and beating the Bears. It's not likely, but it's possible.

These stupid, idiotic announcers just compared Bobby Knight chasing the wins record to Barry Bonds chasing the home run records. I'm speechless.

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game? I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears. Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then). There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs. This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears. You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong. So let me get this straight. Seattle has a chance to "beat" the Bears because the Bears might "beat" themselves? Seattle has a decent team. They aren't a great team but they aren't a horrible team. If the Bears commit turnovers and Seattle doesn't, the Seahawks definitely could win the game. Also, Alexander didn't play in the game the teams played during the season. I'm not saying he would singlehandedly change the outcome of the game since he doesn't play defense but it sure didn't help them at all. Not to mention it was the first game Seattle had played without him. Anytime you are missing an MVP, you're going to be hurt. Seattle is a dangerous team and to take them lightly is not very smart. Again, I'm not saying the Seahawks would beat the Bears if they faced each other in the playoffs and would pick the Bears to win, but you can't say Seattle has no chance to win the game.

Well considering the O/U on sportsbook started at 40.5 and dropped to 37.5 by game time, I don't think many people would have thought the score would have been as high as it was.

It does seem awfully fishy to have only seen a partial list.

I don't know who this "f-a-r-v-e' person is you're talking about but I do know who f-a-v-r-e is. :D

I picked against all 3 big 12 teams today. I have 10 on Alabama, 22 on Cal, and 28 on Rutgers.

I was wondering why the Week 13 NFL game thread had been posted in. Excellent Truffle.

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game? I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears. Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then). There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs. This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears. You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong.

That sounds pessimistic. nah, pessimistic would be "i fully expect the Cubs to play 162 games in '07 and im going to be forced to watch them all" :lmao:

The Packers are vying for a playoff spot. Jacksonville/KC features two teams are going for a playoff spot. And there are many other games where one team is going for a playoff spot, and their opponent might actually leave the starters in well into the 2nd half. :wink: Another good one (and maybe I'm just a homer) seems to be New England/Tennessee. Two teams fighting for playoff position (NE) and the miraculous hope that they can make it (TN). Seems like a great story to me, plus like ndistops said, both teams will leave in their starters. Also, it's an absolute crime that no one in the media has even mentioned Jeff Fisher for Coach of the Year. If the Titans miss the playoffs I don't think he should get it, but if we do there's no team more unlikely or generally less talented. Yeah. When I was setting up the scoreboard at work tonight I was looking at the games more closely and I would have liked to see the New England/Tennessee game moved to Sunday night. The only problem with that is, which I just thought of, is that all the other games will have been played so theoretically the playoff positions could all be determined already (i.e. if NY Jets and Denver both win then Tennessee is out). This is why the NFL should have all the games be played at the same. When Jamal Lewis got his 2000 yards a couple years ago, Billick didn't play him much in the second half (he could have set the single season record) because they were playing in the Sunday Night game and their playoff seeding was secured. If the NFL doesn't want to have all the games played at one time then in Week 17 they should have only NFC-NFC and AFC-AFC matchups instead of AFC-NFC matchups. Then all the NFC games can be played at one time and all the AFC games at the later time. That way, every team with a shot at the playoffs (or with their specific playoff seed in doubt) will have to give it their all.

Yes, the Raiders defense is good. But doesn't it say something that the defense is good (4th least ypg allowed) but the team is 2-13? That offense is, by far, the worst in the league and is completely incompetent. Fewest ppg and ypg. Randy Moss doesn't care. Shell pissed off Jerry Porter in the beginning of the year. He picked an offensive coordinator who hadn't worked in football AT ANY LEVEL since 1999 and then replaced him with John Shoop. The offense has scored 12 touchdowns this year. 12. The Raiders have some talent on offense. It's not great, but it's there. It shouldn't be worst in the league bad. They play in a tough division but should have at least 4 more wins this year. I realize that the Raiders didn't really have any expectations the year so they aren't the biggest disappointment this year. But Art Shell is a horrendous coach. I would take any of the four coaches you listed over Art Shell any day of the week without even thinking about it.

Hello Sean Payton?? That's actually a legitimate argument though. I would vote Payton but Mangini has to be second. Although I would consider voting for Art Shell over both of them seeing as he has done an absolutely spectacular job this year.

In other words, a typical Cubs acquisition. Unfortunately, yes. Unfortunately, yes? Boy, are you guys stuck in the past. NCCubFan was just making a joke. Jokes are better when they are based in reality, so I didn't find it very funny, but you're actually agreeing with him. I can't think of anyone acquired in the last three years probably longer that fits that description. Marquis wasn't good last year, but hes not old and doesn't have a bad back. Maddux was old, but wasn't bad or injured. I mean you've got to go back a long way to find a time when the typical Cub acquisition was even two of those three. Gary Gaetti? Dave Kingman? I've got no problem being critical of our beloved team, but let's at least keep it real. Nicely said. Sometimes the negativity is almost too much. Yeah, I also happen to think the Cubs will go (-2)-164 next year.

I personally like the part about them hoping Mark Mulder has other things on his mind other than where he will play next year because he's on his honeymoon.

With TO's butterfingers you don't have to worry about covering him too much. The most coverage of TO will be done by the media after he makes another lame duck excuse about how when he "looked up, and located the ball, it was right on [him]" even though he was looking at it for a few seconds before watching it go right through his hands. /TO rant Sorry, I wasn't planning on ranting but it just sort of came out. It was going to happen somewhere.

Week 16 vance: - Mark: - ndistops: 7-9 soccer: 6-10 Ryan: - Truffle: 11-5 UMfan: - rawaction: - ChiCubsFan: - Overall: vance: 104-97 Mark: 38-48 ndistops: 114-120 soccer: 111-123 Ryan: 39-31 Truffle: 85-61 UMfan: 46-76 rawaction: 28-35 ChiCubsFan: 30-37 Note: There have been 6 ties overall (2 in Week 3, 2 in Week 5, 1 in Week 7, 1 in Week 11)