|
Post by piñata on Dec 21, 2008 18:32:20 GMT -5
Yeah, that is a bit weird how that worked out... all of a sudden I'm a Falcons fan. They were winning last time I checked, too.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Dec 22, 2008 16:53:29 GMT -5
Dammit, I'm so pissed off. My electricty shut off during the Falcons game yesterday! It was the 2nd quarter, Falcons were ahead 14-7 and the Vikings had just fumbled it for the 3rd time...and then it shuts off! I missed the entire rest of the game! It didn't come back on until the 3rd quarter of the 8:00 game. Oh well, atleast they won though. 10-5 and a guaranteed wildcard for the playoffs. I NEVER would have predicted that before the season. Not only that, but if the Falcons beat the Rams and if the Panthers lose to the Saints, Falcons would win the division and be the 2 seed! Damn. I'll be watching the Bears game tonight. Should definitely be interesting!
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 22, 2008 19:06:57 GMT -5
Damn straight. It's the longest-standing rivalry in football. For some reason, Chicago teams are good at finding people to hate. Look at the Cubs/Cardinals or Blackhawks/Redwings as well. Maybe it's because Chicago's got a lot of Irish people... we're known for our tempers, you know. *dodges Enelya's shoe*
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Dec 23, 2008 19:32:36 GMT -5
Haha, yea. In Ohio all we hate is Michigan, although that is such an extreme hatred that it is worth 10 rivalries. 0.0
How crazy was that Bears game! What more can you ask for when the Bears defense blocks a field goal to save the game and the season! Too perfect. And if I'm not mistaken, the Vikings play the Giants next? If the Giants don't take the week off the Bears could pull it off. Good luck man!
Looks like we're both going to have an exciting weekend this week. Who knows, maybe we'll meet in the playoffs. Assuming PF's team dosn't knock one of uss off ahead of time. =P
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 24, 2008 10:40:36 GMT -5
That does stand a chance of happening, considering how good PF's team is this year. But I'm almost as scared of the Falcons as I am of the Giants... your team has kicked some serious ass. As for the Bears... we haven't really played like we wanted it until the last two weeks or so, and it shows in our record. If we make it to the playoffs, it'll be more luck than anything else, and unless Devin Hester can make it to ball-catching school before the playoffs begin I expect us to get our asses handed to us the first game.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Dec 28, 2008 12:12:30 GMT -5
My friends and I were discussing how to make Hester a good reciever. We decided the best course of action would be to line him up 40 yards back and have the quarterback toss it back to him. You know, try to mimic a punt return and whatnot. =P He's REALLY good once he has the ball in his hands though. Anyways, today is a very exciting day for the both of us it looks like. I just need the Saints to beat the Panthers. I don't know if you have NFL Network, but they've mentioned a few times the interesting trend in the NFC South. The home team has won EVERY game. Falcons every home game and lost every road game within the NFC South, and the same is true for each team. The Panthers game is in New Orleans. I like my odds. Also, I played the Rams/Falcons game on Madden. 38-0. I've never scored that high, nor have I ever held a team scoreless. Also also, I get the Vikings/Giants game, so i'll be keeping my eye on that one today.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 29, 2008 12:59:55 GMT -5
Bears are out of it. I think I saw something about the Falcons winning, but I'm pretty sure the Saints lost too... does that mean the Falcons made it in, or not?
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Dec 29, 2008 14:46:07 GMT -5
Yea, the Falcons are in. They clinched a wildcard spot last week. This week though, had the Saints beat the Pantheres, the Falcons would have won the NFC South and had the #2 Seed, which would have meant a first round bye and homefield advantage. Now they have 3 games on the road. I'm not confident in Atlanta's ability to win on the road. 4 out of their 5 losses were away games, and they only lost once at home against the Broncos. That #2 spot would have made me incredibly confident, but 3 games straight on the road? Not good... Their first game is against the Arizona Cardinals, and the Cardinals have kicked ass at home as well. >_< Edit: Here is a picture of the bracket. www.chiff.com/images/nfl-brackets.gifMy predictions: NFC: Week 1: Falcons beat the Cardinals Viking beat the Eagles Week 2: Giants beat the Falcons Panthers beat the Vikings Week 3: Panthers upset the Giants =P AFC: Week 1: Colts beat the Chargers Ravens beat the Dolphins Week 2: Colts beat the Titans Steelers beat the Ravens (unless Roethlisberger is out, then the Ravens win) Week 3: Steelers beat the Colts, but the Colts beat the Ravens if they make it. Superbowl: Steelers/Colts Vs. Panthers See, I normally don't make such predictions public because I wind up embarrassing myself. D'oh.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 29, 2008 18:53:42 GMT -5
Some of your predictions sound pretty accurate, though... we'll see how many come true. I'd like to see the Vikings lose 78-0 their first playoff game, though.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Dec 30, 2008 8:55:51 GMT -5
Haha, well if the Eagles dominate like they did against the Cowboys (44-6) and if Adrian Peterson fumbles it as much as he did against the falcons (He fumbled and lost it at least 3 times, and the Vikings altogether had 7 fumbles, losing 4 of them. He also fumbled and lost it atlesat once against the Giants) the Eagles could really stick it to them. Thing is, they fumbled it 7 times and still only barely lost against the Falcons. Also, you don't make turnovers like that and win against the Giants easily. If they fix that problem they could be a force in the playoffs. I understand your pain though. I wouldn't mind the Panthers getting destroyed as soon as possible. Hell, maybe the Vikings will do it for me.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jan 4, 2009 18:23:50 GMT -5
Bad news about the Falcons, Ape. I kinda wanted them to win, too. Hopefully PF's Giants will do better next week.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Jan 5, 2009 20:33:07 GMT -5
Yea, I saw the Falcons game, it was a bit of a dissapointment. Arizona somehow knew the snap count so they were able to jump on the offensive line before the ball was even snapped. Of course, I always thought that was considered offsides, but apparently the refs disagreed. Oh well, I can hardly complain with an 11-5 record. And I'm very optimistic about the future. Right now though, as I'm posting this, I'm stuck watching Ohio State play Texas. Whoever the moron is who matched up a poorly ranked Ohio State team against the #3 team in the nation who was a contender for the National Championship is a complete retard, who deserves a very slow and painful death. If you didn't know Pinata, after the college football season is over the only post-season game for a team is a bowl game, which are hand-chosen by, apparently, retards. They are supposed to pick good games (#1 vs #2, #3 vs #4...) but for some reason the #3 Longhorns skipped a huge chunk of teams and got matched up against the #9 Buckeyes.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jan 6, 2009 13:08:49 GMT -5
That does sound kinda fucked up. As for the Falcons... a lot of teams got hosed by bad calls this year, which I find surprising considering that instant replay is an option (unlike baseball, where teams really get fucked up the ass by bad calls). I think it's time for teams to do some refereeing... if you see somebody offsides, facemask him. If someone commits pass interference against you, lock arms with him and yank his shoulder out of its socket. People will start playing fair really quick if they know that the punishment for cheating is pain and possibly even injured reserve time.
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Jan 6, 2009 17:07:18 GMT -5
Indeed, the only problem with those guys jumping offsides is...they're bigger than you. Somewhat unrelated yet on the topic of penalties, am I the only one who absolutely despises the roughing the kicker penalties? Don't get me wrong, I do think the kickers need to be protected. When they are kicking, they are completely vulnerable, and when a 350 pound monster hits you at full speed I can understand the need to prevent injury to the little guy. Even when running backs run into them, they put their heads down and brace themselves for the impact, a kicker has to just take it in the ribs. However, why give the offense a first down? What did the offense do to deserve another shot at the inzone? They didn't do shit, and hitting the kicker has absolutely nothing to do with the offensive squad, I mean it's a completely different group of guys! Everytime I see that penalty called I want to strangle the asshole who decided to give a team a new set of downs. It's crazy!
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jan 7, 2009 11:00:46 GMT -5
I don't know, some of those offensive linemen are pretty huge... I think they could tangle with the defensive backs and come out of it okay. Take John Tait of the Bears for one example... he looks about as big as Brian Urlacher, but he's on the offensive line instead the defensive one.
Also, I agree with you about the roughing the kicker penalty maybe being too extreme in its punishment. I'd prefer to see the team that roughed the kicker get penalized 5 or 10 yards but no change in downs.
|
|