|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Kurgan GringioniKurgan Gringioni Date: Dec 31, 2006 16:07
He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
means we were more negative than he.
|
| |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Date: Dec 31, 2006 16:59
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
Yea..... ok whatever..... maybe you haven't noticed he's GONE?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael TMichael T Date: Dec 31, 2006 17:10
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Chuck D.Chuck D. Date: Dec 31, 2006 17:01
Fuck him! "Death to all who oppose us!" :)
!!!GO BOLTS!!!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David F. Mishiwiec Sr.David F. Mishiwiec Sr. Date: Dec 31, 2006 17:25
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
Is that true Robin? I myself predicted 9-7 but amended that to 11-5
after our Week One 27-0 demolition of the Raiders.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
>
There were a couple of 16-0 predictions too. Seriously though and
speaking for myself, I never suspected that this team had the potential
to go 14-2 and close out the regular season with 10 consecutive wins.
The trouble now is anything short of a Super Bowl victory will make this
season a disappointment. Ask the Seahawks about last year.
--
***************************************************************************************************************************
David F. Mishiwiec Sr.
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ragnarok73Ragnarok73 Date: Dec 31, 2006 17:32
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
The OL wasn't a concern like I thought it might be and that was worth at
least 3-4 wins by itself. My other concern was the secondary, and while the
jury's still out on them as far as I'm concerned, the rest of the defense
has really stepped it up, especially Phillips, Castillo, and Lights Out.
I'm still worried because A) Iceberg was positive about a season for the
first time ever and B) he was dead on right. I'm watching for the signs of
the apocalypse now. Does anyone know if Ice predicted a Super Bowl win this
year?
Ragnarok73
--
"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land."
- Marcus Aurelius
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: gjohns01gjohns01 Date: Dec 31, 2006 19:32
Ragnarok73 wrote:
> The OL wasn't a concern like I thought it might be and that was worth at
> least 3-4 wins by itself. My other concern was the secondary, and while the
> jury's still out on them as far as I'm concerned, the rest of the defense
> has really stepped it up, especially Phillips, Castillo, and Lights Out.
The OL surprised me too. The difference being the lack of injuries
and the dramatic emergence of McNeil.
The secondary has improved, but could use more work. Nevertheless, I
think it has gone from...
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Kurgan GringioniKurgan Gringioni Date: Dec 31, 2006 19:37
>
> The OL surprised me too. The difference being the lack of injuries
> and the dramatic emergence of McNeil.
One thing that should be noted: In 2004, the line excelled under Houck,
then he went to Miami and our team hired Mauck the Screamer, who was a
disaster. Many of the team's losses last year can be attributed to the
discombobulated O-line play. This year, to replace Mauck, our team
hired *two* O-line coaches and drafted McNeil. The line had a few shaky
games at the beginning, but clearly it's been really solid the last
half of the season.
The O-linemen deserve a lot of the credit, of course, but the coaches
are their leaders and they set the tempo. They teach the guys, make up
the schemes, set the protection patterns, etc. Our team made a mistake
with the coaching change from 2004-2005, but they recognized it and
remedied it.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jan 1, 2007 17:16
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
>
Hey Ice, take a bow :-)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: steveGsteveG Date: Jan 1, 2007 13:19
On 2006-12-31 16:07:02 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni" hotmail.com> said:
> He's the only one who predicted a 14-2 record.
>
> Nearly all of the rest of us predicted less wins than he did which
> means we were more negative than he.
He won't even come in here .. he posted in the Padres NG talking about
the Bolts..
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
