Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

Manziel Debate


DrJuice1980

Recommended Posts

Blow away a bunch of 1st rounders trying to find the next Peyton or Brady. Nice idea. If winning the Super Bowl were that easy those 2 would be dueling for it every single season and there would be a large talent pool to choose from. Not always the case. Football is the truest TEAM sport, you need more than one player. I wouldn't expect you to know that though. Anything that requires more than a copy/paste or plagiarism is over your head. A pass play is simply the QB throwing a ball to a guy in the open. That about sums up your knowledge level for the game of football and it proves by the videos you post. If your goal is to become the biggest joke on here you've succeeded. You seriously know Jack squat about football.

Sad attempt at a comeback. Really though, you didn't let me down because I have very low expectations for your input.

LMITs takes:

Rinse.

Repeat.

What a fraud

Waiting for the next Manziel video to pick apart and get your dobber down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Big Dave2

    181

  • DrJuice1980

    176

  • CaptainMusky

    173

  • LMITOUT

    135

There won't be 8 guys in the box defending Manziel in the NFL creep.

There most certainly will if a Mr. Adrian Peterson is in the back-field...count on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously know Jack squat about football.

Your ignorance is astounding, yet each time you post you take it to another level.

Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear Big Dave and LMIT make love to their wife's thinking about him, well probably not LMIT, he's married to his keyboard.

Are you married? I have a tough time believing you are since you probably spend all of your time staring in the mirror telling yourself how great you are. It probably sounds something like: "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you". But, judging by the PM's and emails I get with your name in the subject line the perception is actually "D: None of the above".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I suppose to be scared away from calling you out now? What, you got that staff badge and it's just fine for you to go around calling people puke stains but if I did it oh no, we need to talk about this juice character. Give me a break. You want to know when you've lost the argue ment? When you resort to scare tactics.

Way to go Stalin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, judging by the PM's and emails I get with your name in the subject line the perception is actually "D: None of the above".

PMs from who? Your alternate usernames? Are all of you middleschool girls? Wow, impressive that gossip gets "handled" in PMs. What a bunch of children.

BTW it isnt Rocket Surgery to think the Vikings NEED TO and WILL Draft a QB in this draft. The question becomes WHERE. I would HATE to pick JM with a top 5 pick. I would HATE ANY of these QBs in this draft at that pick. BUT, later 1st Round and in the second I think there are plenty of guys you can take a chance on and "find out" if he is the franchise guy.

You guys better brace yourselves, because I am quite sure Ponder isnt going anywhere. Neither of the other two QBs will be on this roster next year IMO. Least likely Cassel. After being passed over several times and basically flat out told Ponder and Freeman were the "options" for starters, there is pretty much no chance he will want to come back. Which is too bad, I like the guy, I just dont think he gives us a decided advantage over Ponder to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and no, I am not married. Been in a relationship for 5+ yrs though. I don't need a document to make me feel secure.

Knowing that you get PMs and emails about me makes me feel important. Doggonit, people like me.... You just made my daily affirmations meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you married? I have a tough time believing you are since you probably spend all of your time staring in the mirror telling yourself how great you are. It probably sounds something like: "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you". But, judging by the PM's and emails I get with your name in the subject line the perception is actually "D: None of the above".

LMFAO! This thread continues to produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love reading this thread every day! It's like being a Dad again without having to turn and say to the children... " Don't make me stop this car!"... laugh

Good Luck!

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football is a team game, however don't kid yourself that if the Vikes draft the next Luck, Rodgers etc they will be right back in the mix again. Look at the Pack with no Rodgers they are terrible, put Rodgers on that terrible team and they are a Super Bowl favorite! Same with Indy, 1st pick in the draft and in playoffs next year because they have a stud QB! That is what this league is, a QB league, nothing more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll then end up looking like the Cowboys, put up big numbers only to have the other team put up bigger. Get it?

Rogers, Peyton, Brady, Brees, Romo, Luck, Wilson, Rivers, Manziel.

Which one doesn't belong?

Definitely not a hard question to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a Packer fan... they are in no way a Super Bowl favorite even if Rogers never got hurt. I said in the beginning of the year that the D is too weak to be a true playoff team. Not that they would not have made it to the playoffs, but you will not go far if your D cannot stop another team's offense. Losing Rogers just exposed how horrid the D is because there is/was/has been little offense generated. Defense wins Super Bowls.

Good Luck!

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense keeps the offense on the field, Offense keeps the Defense off the field. Without both you don't stand a chance. You are correct, defense wins championships because the offense has more time to figure things out. Some guys on here lack the brain power to comprehend that (LMIT).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense keeps the offense on the field, Offense keeps the Defense off the field. Without both you don't stand a chance. You are correct, defense wins championships because the offense has more time to figure things out. Some guys on here lack the brain power to comprehend that (LMIT).

Then how do you explain the Packers being 5-2 with Aaron Rodgers and then 1-1-4 without?

Don't get me wrong, it's great to add pieces to your defense as you go and shore it up but in the NFL the QB is the most important position and adding a piece here and there to a bad defense will never get you as far as adding 1 quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Defense wins championships."

Yeah, twenty years ago.

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pack have a -61:00 in time of possession since the injury. Before the injury it was +28:00. In 7 games that Rodgers was QB they only held the ball for 28 more mins than the opponent. The QB/Offense does help the Time of Possession stat but not as much as the Defense when it comes to getting the O back on.

Pretty big swing.

If my post that you replied to did not answer your question then maybe this does.

When's the last time you heard "We need to get the Defense back on the field"

Never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Defense wins championships."

Yeah, twenty years ago.

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

39 out of the 47 superbowl losers only put up 21 (1TD every 20 mins) points or less. I'd say Defense won those games.

Since 1993, 10 losing teams were held to 17 points or less.

Who's out of touch with reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How condescending of you.

So you're the kind of guy where "Division Champions" and "Conference Champions" matter?

Prove that you aren't a fraud, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pack have a -61:00 in time of possession since the injury. Before the injury it was +28:00. In 7 games that Rodgers was QB they only held the ball for 28 more mins than the opponent. The QB/Offense does help the Time of Possession stat but not as much as the Defense when it comes to getting the O back on.

Pretty big swing.

If my post that you replied to did not answer your question then maybe this does.

When's the last time you heard "We need to get the Defense back on the field"

Never.

Exactly.

You just proved my point of why the Vikings need a quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a way for him to attempt a spin on a loosing argument. He's already tried the scare tactics, now comes the dip and twirl. Guys such a phony, so transparent, so erroneous. The only thing I like about him are his random video posts in the entertainment forum are pretty funny but that's because he doesn't need to type.

Everything else is:

Rinse.

Repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really what you got from that? If it were just the QB then the change would've been close to even. Why isn't it? If Rodgers was the sole reason why did they lose to the Bungles and San Fran? Why was the time of possession only +28 in 7 games? That's an average of +4mins a game. Without him the average is -10mins. Way more than a 1 man reasoning.

Simple minds think "Whoever scores more, a game of catch up and whoever has it last wins"

Complex minds think "Whoever stops the other more will win"

Again its: "Get the Offense back on the field"

Not

"Get the Defense back on the field"

Id have better luck explaining this to the KinderCare down the road

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reason that they talk about the fact that 2 game managing QBs Dilfer and Johnson have ever won Super Bowls because they had top 5 D's of all time. The rest have been top 5 QB's for probably the other 90% of the games. Look how many teams had terrible D's and won Super Bowls in last 10 years alone. Saints, Packers, Colts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you mean to add Eli and Big Ben, who have won 4 out of the last 8 Super Bowls, to the list of non-elite QBs with solid D's???

BOX!!!!

I live in the past though right LMIT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look how many teams had terrible D's and won Super Bowls in last 10 years alone. Saints, Packers, Colts...

You mean the 2010 Packers? With, depending on how the stats were added up, had the 5th best defense in the NFL that year? That's how you win the Super Bowl. Get in as the 6th seed team as a Wildcard, and work your way through the palyoffs with a great QB and a D that makes stops! I believe they ended up close to the best in INTs, rushing yards allowed and lowest QB rating. If I remember correctly, the year before was the debacle with Arizona where it was almost 100 points. That is the last team with the ball wins. Without a D, it does not matter who is flinging the football, your chances are close to 50-50 for a win.

All things being equal, I'll take an average Def (ranked 12-18 inthe NFL) and a top five QB... but if you are near the bottom in defense ranking (packers), your stud QB will only take you so far. ie: the Packers. and yes, the Bengals game this year is a perfect example.

Good Luck!

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly the dumbest statement in this whole thread, and that's saying something. There is no level of football in which coverage gets better the longer a play runs. Period.

I agree, I was thinking someone should enter that statement in the most preposterous statement tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was getting at if you don't produce in the regular season and playoffs you don't get into the Superbowl.

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youre right, theres no such thing as a coverage sack. Weird how those happen the longer a play drags on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • LakeofthewoodsMN
      On the South Shore...  The focus for many this week is the ongoing deer hunting season which is a big tradition in these parts, even for avid walleye anglers.  There were some that either already harvested their deer or are more into catching fall walleyes than hunting.     Those that are fishing are taking advantage of the unseasonably warm weather and excellent walleye and sauger bite that is happening across the lake.  Cold weather is in the forecast in the upcoming days and weeks so that is also getting many excited. The best depths on the south end of LOW are 22-28 feet of water.     Vertical jigging with frozen emerald shiners is catching most of the walleyes, saugers and jumbo perch.  Depending upon where on the lake you are fishing, some slots and big trophies are in the mix as well, but most reports are talking about good numbers of eaters.    Jumbo perch are coming in good numbers this fall which will serve ice anglers well.  Watch out for an occasional pike or even lake sturgeon mixed in with the walleyes.      There are good numbers of walleyes and saugers across the south shore which is setting up nicely for early ice.   On the Rainy River...  There continues to be good numbers of shiners in the river, and consequently, there are good walleyes in the river as well.     Walleyes along with saugers, pike and some sturgeon are coming in up and down the river.  Most walleyes are being caught in 10-25 feet of water in various stretches of the river.   Jigging with live or frozen emerald shiners is the key. Some anglers are also still slow trolling crankbaits upstream to cover more ground and find fish. Both methods are producing solid results. Sturgeon fishing remains strong.  The catch-and-release sturgeon fishing is open into the spring when it changes to the "keep season" on April 24th. Up at the NW Angle...  As temps are getting colder, most are in the woods hunting and not fall fishing, however, for those who bundle up, fishing continues to be excellent.     A nice mixed bag with walleyes, saugers, perch, pike and crappies being caught. Very good muskie fishing with the colder water temps and shorter days.  Some big fish and some good numbers are being caught amongst the islands.  Both casting and trolling is getting it done.  
    • gimruis
      I hunt in the rifle zone so I don't have a need to use a shotgun to hunt deer, but I would be looking at this if there was ever a need to.   There could be state legislation introduced next summer that eliminates the shotgun zone completely.  It has bipartisan support.  Wisconsin removed theirs years ago and MN is usually later to follow.  They've tried to pass it more than once and it came up just short both times.  Probably just a matter of time.
    • Wanderer
      Oh, h e l l no! 
    • leech~~
      Screw that, here's whatch need!  😆   Power-Shok Rifled Slug 10 Gauge 766 Grain Grain Weight: 766 Shotshell Length: 3-1/2in / 89mm Muzzle Velocity: 1280
    • Wanderer
      20 ga has become a real popular deer round in the last 5 or so years.  The rifled barrels are zinging those sabot slugs with rifle like accuracy out to 100 yards easily.  Some go so far as dialing in for a 200 yard shot but really, by 150 they’re falling off pretty low.   I have a single shot Ultraslug in 20 ga that shoots really well at 100 yards.  Most everyone I know that has bought a slug gun lately has gotten the Savage 220 in 20ga.  Problem can be finding the shells you want.
    • leech~~
      My son always bugs me about getting a nice light over-under 20ga for grouse hunting.  I say Heck no, I'm getting a 3 1/2" 10ga so I can put as much lead in the air that I can!!     So, I'm keeping my 12ga.  
    • 11-87
      That’s almost exactly what I was thinking.  Have slug barrels for both   One for turkey and one for deer.      I have a 20ga mosseberg as well. (Combo came with the scope but never used.   I always liked the 12 better
    • leech~~
      Wanderer is right on the money and covered it well.  I was wondering too if you had a slug barrel for one of your guns?  If so you could make that your slug gun with a scope, and the other your turkey gun with the Red dot.  As you can afford it. 
    • Wanderer
      Kinda depends on if you want magnification or quick target acquisition.   More magnification options and better accuracy with a scope.  You get what you pay for too so get comfortable with a budget for one.  Tasco and Bushnell work but I find they lose their zero easier, have low contrast and don’t gather light well in low light conditions.  That said, I’m still using one I haven’t replaced yet.  Vortex has been the hot brand for the past several years for bang for the buck.  Good products.  Nothing beats Swarovski though.  Huge dough for those.  Burris is another decent option.   There are some specific models for shotgun/slug hunting in the economy brands and bullet drop compensation (BDC) reticles.  Based on experience I’d recommend not falling for that marketing ploy.   Red dots are usually lower magnification and easier to get on target.  Reasonably accurate but don’t do well with definition, like searching the brush for your target.  I put a HAWKE red dot on a .22 for squirrels and it’s been good.  For turkey, that’s probably the route I’d go.     If your slug shots are normally not too far and too brushy, I’d think a red dot could work there too if you’re only buying 1 scope.  You’ll be better off dimming the reticle to the lowest setting you can easily use to not over shine the target and get a finer aim point.   If you don’t have a slug barrel, you might appreciate one of those.  I had a browning with a smoothbore slug barrel that shot Brenneke 2-3/4 inch well.  The 11-87 would well fitted with a cantelever rifled barrel. 
    • 11-87
      Looking for recommendations on scope or red dot    I basically hunt turkey and whitetail, live in southern MN. So it’s all deer/ shotgun    looking to add a scope/ red dot as my eyes don’t work like they used to to with the open sights.    my gun options are 11/87 12. Browning BPS 12    not looking for the most expensive or the cheapest    pros and cons of one over the other
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.