-The Glove-
New member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 7,689
- Reaction score
- 0
What the hell you think this thread was going to accomplish?
SacHawk2.0":2mx4u75n said:I have nothing to say so I'll just keep posting the same nonsense over and over. What difference does it make? I have buddies here who will cheer for anything I post. Hooray!!!
-The Glove-":zf8o8qrg said:What the hell you think this thread was going to accomplish?
AvengerRam":2imugiq6 said:Scottemojo":2imugiq6 said:And where is Wilson in running yards and first downs run for?AvengerRam":2imugiq6 said:Scottemojo":2imugiq6 said:But you did talk shit, just in your passive aggressive way. "Der, bradford would be 5-1 if he played for the Hawks" or some passive aggressive version of the same thing. Bradford would be in traction if he played for the Hawks right now.
That's not talking shit.
The Seahawks' biggest assets are their defense and their running game. That's what allows them to have a QB with the fewest pass attempts/game of any starting QB in the NFL. You guys always seem to overlook that fact and its significance.
So, yes... if Sam Bradford played with a RB producing like Lynch and a defense that perfomed like the Seahawks current D, I have no doubt in my mind that he could lead them into the playoffs.
You guys are so defensive that... despite the fact that I'm COMPLIMENTING your team, all you see is an insult towards Wilson.
Of course we are defensive, you are passive aggressive. I covered that already.
Wilson is obviously a much better runner than Bradford.
That said, the production disparity is fairly small. After 6 games, Wilson is averaging 258.0 combined rushing/passing yards per game, while Bradford is averaging 243.7.
So, I guess in your minds the difference between an MVP candidate QB and a mediocre QB is 14 yards (and change) per game.
AvengerRam":3ez86iiz said:-The Glove-":3ez86iiz said:What the hell you think this thread was going to accomplish?
Good question.
I guess I overestimated you guys.
My mistake.
AvengerRam":3kgj71qc said:Thank you all for proving, once again, that a significant number of the Hawks fans on this site are immature, insecure, children who can't handle a completely non-offensive post from another team's fan.
I'm sure you're all proud of yourself for showing the big bad Rams fan that he can't come around here an dare to post facts if they don't fit the Hawks' agenda and narrative.
And, if this is trolling... go ahead and ban me.
SacHawk2.0":3lhgoi1a said:You're in your mid sixties? You'd think by that age you'd be able to grasp things like logic and reason.
cdallan":1fl7rkwu said:I have no problem with the guy's post, and I think it's unfair to cal it trolling,
but the argument for Bradford being better than average is not that compelling.
But then when that gets pointed out, he gets that kind of angered to tears 10 year olds get when they are the victim of some huge injustice.
And that makes me laugh, and sometimes half-chubbed.
And we all feel good about ourselves until the next thread whining about other peoples' whining. The Internet circle of life.
Bradford stays trash though. That is a universal constant.
AvengerRam":3ge5pv4h said:SacHawk2.0":3ge5pv4h said:You're in your mid sixties? You'd think by that age you'd be able to grasp things like logic and reason.
Yes, because YOU are clearly the source of logic and reason around these parts. :roll:
Seriously, dude... what are you overcompensating for?
Never mind... I don't want to know.
Sarlacc83":2aoihlzg said: