Rams/Cowboys brawl at practice

[RedAlice]

I love the pre-season uppity Rams fans! Always good for a chuckle!

They're usually gone by the time we hit week ten or so.

I'm hoping to finish the year out with a few more of us than usual.

 

[RichNhansom]

How good would SEA have been the last two years later it Russell Wilson had been hurt for over 20 straight games? So many games the Rams D gives up single digits in the first half and the flood gates open in the second half. When they're on the field all game they break down later. That's any team, really, but I am pounding the table for Nick Foles. If we can have him for 19 games this year then I love our Chances.

The team to beat is the Packers. I don't know if we can stop Aaron Rogers. The guy is Kurt Warner with legs. He's by a good margin the best QB in the league.

The Seahawks with their backup QB would have been better than the rams would have been with their starting QB.

The Seahawks are actually the team to beat because they actually did beat the Packers and then improved their offense while the Packers did nothing to get better. I still don't see how people can believe that the Packers are the team to beat. The better team gets better and the team that couldn't get it done before stayed the same...the team that stayed the same is the team to beat. That's just dumb.

Except I don't believe the Packers would have lost to the Cheaters.

And you'll never find out for sure.

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.[/quote]

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

 

[Rex]

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

Doesn't change my point at all. It isn't how the Seahawks match up against the Packers. Its how the Seahawks match up against the Cheaters. Packers matched up better against the Cheaters. I'm not questioning the Seahawks as NFC champs. I question whether the Seahawks were the best NFC team to match up against the Patriots.

 

[RichNhansom]

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

Doesn't change my point at all. It isn't how the Seahawks match up against the Packers. Its how the Seahawks match up against the Cheaters. Packers matched up better against the Cheaters. I'm not questioning the Seahawks as NFC champs. I question whether the Seahawks were the best NFC team to match up against the Patriots.

Because of yards? Really? That is the only measuring stick? I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

If you want to try and make an argument based on strengths and weakness's then by all means go for it but simply quoting yards while ignoring that we thoroughly trounced the Pack week one when both teams were healthy is ignoring blatant facts that any logical/knowledgeable fan would not do unless he is deliberately trying to make a point. IE being a troll.

If you want to say in your opinion, that would be fine too but simply grabbing yards and ignoring everything else says you are not trying to just use opinion. You are trying to justify your stance and everyone reading this knows it is just simple bias not based on any logic at all.

To follow your logic a person would have to believe we would turn it over 5 times every time we played the Pack and even then we would still win at least 50% of the tame.

 

[Rex]

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

Doesn't change my point at all. It isn't how the Seahawks match up against the Packers. Its how the Seahawks match up against the Cheaters. Packers matched up better against the Cheaters. I'm not questioning the Seahawks as NFC champs. I question whether the Seahawks were the best NFC team to match up against the Patriots.

Because of yards? Really? That is the only measuring stick? I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

If you want to try and make an argument based on strengths and weakness's then by all means go for it but simply quoting yards while ignoring that we thoroughly trounced the Pack week one when both teams were healthy is ignoring blatant facts that any logical/knowledgeable fan would not do unless he is deliberately trying to make a point. IE being a troll.

If you want to say in your opinion, that would be fine too but simply grabbing yards and ignoring everything else says you are not trying to just use opinion. You are trying to justify your stance and everyone reading this knows it is just simple bias not based on any logic at all.

To follow your logic a person would have to believe we would turn it over 5 times every time we played the Pack and even then we would still win at least 50% of the tame.

How am I being obtuse? The Packers not only outgained by far the Cheaters, they BEAT them. That is the measuring stick. And of course it is my opinion as I clearly stated at the beginning "I don't believe".

 

[Laloosh]

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

Doesn't change my point at all. It isn't how the Seahawks match up against the Packers. Its how the Seahawks match up against the Cheaters. Packers matched up better against the Cheaters. I'm not questioning the Seahawks as NFC champs. I question whether the Seahawks were the best NFC team to match up against the Patriots.

If the Packers can hold NWE to just over 50 plays in a game, they're going to win 9/10. As would Seattle.

Every game, every week is going to be very different (particularly with NE in the equation). NE was able to exploit a lot of injuries in the SEA secondary in XLIX. It probably does sound ridiculous to fans outside of SEA to hear that the nickel corner leaving the game would be a huge deal for Seattle but it really was. Combine that with the loss of Avril, Scruggs, Mebane and I think even Dobbs who had shown himself to be a solid rotational guy, you get a NE team passing 50 times on a defense that has been giving the best QB's in the league their worst day at the office for the past 3 years.

I honestly walked away from XLIX as having been one of the best football games i'd ever watched and I wasn't really that pissed off, well, maybe for a day or two but that was only about the last play.

I think a healthy SEA team stops that NE offense in the 2nd quarter (as in, shuts them down) and SEA wins by double digits. Just my opinion but I don't think GB is a better matchup against NE. They had a better day in week 13 than SEA had in XLIX but i couldn't care less about that. GB's defense is not going to limit NE to so few plays (54) consistently and that NE secondary giving up 368 yards to even Rodgers on most days.

I can see how you think GB's offense matches up better against NE's defense but the TOP and number of plays run in the two games against NE are not (imo) representative of how those matchups would play out over multiple games with the 2014 rosters.

 

[Sports Hernia]

How good would SEA have been the last two years later it Russell Wilson had been hurt for over 20 straight games? So many games the Rams D gives up single digits in the first half and the flood gates open in the second half. When they're on the field all game they break down later. That's any team, really, but I am pounding the table for Nick Foles. If we can have him for 19 games this year then I love our Chances.

The team to beat is the Packers. I don't know if we can stop Aaron Rogers. The guy is Kurt Warner with legs. He's by a good margin the best QB in the league.

The Seahawks with their backup QB would have been better than the rams would have been with their starting QB.

The Seahawks are actually the team to beat because they actually did beat the Packers and then improved their offense while the Packers did nothing to get better. I still don't see how people can believe that the Packers are the team to beat. The better team gets better and the team that couldn't get it done before stayed the same...the team that stayed the same is the team to beat. That's just dumb.

Except I don't believe the Packers would have lost to the Cheaters.

2 of my stepbrothers are diehard Packer fans. When the one who lives in NY came back for my stepsister's wedding, he told me "We would've beaten the Patriots." I put on my best shit-eating grin, and told him, "Yeah, but you couldn't beat us, even after we spotted you 16 points and 5 turnovers." He didn't say a thing to me about football for the rest of the weekend.

The Cheatriots would have put a 45 burger on the Cheese's defense.

 

[Rex]

True, but when the Packers beat the Cheaters earlier in the season they outgained them in yardage 478 to 320. It wasn't close.

I'm not going to bother to look it up but the Seahawks demoralized a healthy Packers team the first game of the season. So if you want to go by prior events then how do you explain the Seahawks beating the Pack twice last year? It is much harder to beat a team twice in one season than it is to have one win but if you are going to go by one win then you should really look at the game with less anomaly's like 5 turn overs in one game.

If we normally turned the ball over 5 times in a game or the Pack normally caused 5 turn overs in a game then your logic would make some sense but you know that is not the case so your explanation is either trolling or wishful thinking but definitely not based on reality.

Doesn't change my point at all. It isn't how the Seahawks match up against the Packers. Its how the Seahawks match up against the Cheaters. Packers matched up better against the Cheaters. I'm not questioning the Seahawks as NFC champs. I question whether the Seahawks were the best NFC team to match up against the Patriots.

If the Packers can hold NWE to just over 50 plays in a game, they're going to win 9/10. As would Seattle.

Every game, every week is going to be very different (particularly with NE in the equation). NE was able to exploit a lot of injuries in the SEA secondary in XLIX. It probably does sound ridiculous to fans outside of SEA to hear that the nickel corner leaving the game would be a huge deal for Seattle but it really was. Combine that with the loss of Avril, Scruggs, Mebane and I think even Dobbs who had shown himself to be a solid rotational guy, you get a NE team passing 50 times on a defense that has been giving the best QB's in the league their worst day at the office for the past 3 years.

I honestly walked away from XLIX as having been one of the best football games i'd ever watched and I wasn't really that pissed off, well, maybe for a day or two but that was only about the last play.

I think a healthy SEA team stops that NE offense in the 2nd quarter (as in, shuts them down) and SEA wins by double digits. Just my opinion but I don't think GB is a better matchup against NE. They had a better day in week 13 than SEA had in XLIX but i couldn't care less about that. GB's defense is not going to limit NE to so few plays (54) consistently and that NE secondary giving up 368 yards to even Rodgers on most days.

I can see how you think GB's offense matches up better against NE's defense but the TOP and number of plays run in the two games against NE are not (imo) representative of how those matchups would play out over multiple games with the 2014 rosters.

But as you say the Seahawks didn't enter that game healthy. I do understand your point about TOP also. Seahawks would have beaten the Cheaters 2 of 3 times IMO .....but for only one game, I still say Packers matched up better with the Cheaters. It makes the ending of that Super Bowl so unpalatable that the Seahawks came that close only to lose to that bunch.

 

[Rex]

Except I don't believe the Packers would have lost to the Cheaters.

2 of my stepbrothers are diehard Packer fans. When the one who lives in NY came back for my stepsister's wedding, he told me "We would've beaten the Patriots." I put on my best shit-eating grin, and told him, "Yeah, but you couldn't beat us, even after we spotted you 16 points and 5 turnovers." He didn't say a thing to me about football for the rest of the weekend.

The Cheatriots would have put a 45 burger on the Cheese's defense.

I disagree.