AFC/NFC Championship Weekend '10

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

Not a hypocrite. I tried to nicely detour our debate from being personal. But you insisted on insulted me like the immature facetious prick you are.

I have yet to insult you. Unless you are insulted by being called out on being hypocrtical in the context of this thread. But hey, that's not my problem.

[DynamiteRave]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

This is entertainment at it's finest.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I'm not an Oracle. Never proclaimed to be. Anyone who thinks Campbell can be a playoff QB has no credibility in my book.

I personally think he can be a playoff QB but I'm tired of going into every year hoping we "just get to the playoffs." I want a team that year in and year out is a strong contender to reach and win the Super Bowl.

I don't want a team that has to get lucky like the Jets (two teams laying down at the end of the season and 5 missed field goals from opponents in the playoffs). Don't get me wrong they're a great story and if Sanchez develops they will be competing for Super Bowls on an annual basis, but if they expect the same thing to happen next year then quite frankly they're dreaming.

Shanahan is an offensive genius. Give him a true franchise QB and you're set up for a decade that could possibly be better then the 80's. Now I'm not even saying that Bradford or Clausen is that guy, but if the front office determines that they are that true franchise guy then we would have to be braindead to pass up that chance to take them. Especially if drafting a QB down the line means trading a second round pick to move up.

Campbell will have a chance to prove himself this year and he will have a much better offensive line but even then it's likely that he's not the guy that can get a 100 QB rating on the year, year in and year out.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

You've been a member of this site long enough to know I'm a girl.

You must pardon me. You've now fixed it so I'll never ever forget.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

You've been a member of this site long enough to know I'm a girl.

and a very attractive girl too.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I personally think he can be a playoff QB but I'm tired of going into every year hoping we "just get to the playoffs." I want a team that year in and year out is a strong contender to reach and win the Super Bowl.

I don't want a team that has to get lucky like the Jets (two teams laying down at the end of the season and 5 missed field goals from opponents in the playoffs). Don't get me wrong they're a great story and if Sanchez develops they will be competing for Super Bowls on an annual basis, but if they expect the same thing to happen next year then quite frankly they're dreaming.

Shanahan is an offensive genius. Give him a true franchise QB and you're set up for a decade that could possibly be better then the 80's. Now I'm not even saying that Bradford or Clausen is that guy, but if the front office determines that they are that true franchise guy then we would have to be braindead to pass up that chance to take them. Especially if drafting a QB down the line means trading a second round pick to move up.

Campbell will have a chance to prove himself this year and he will have a much better offensive line but even then it's likely that he's not the guy that can get a 100 QB rating on the year, year in and year out.

The relevant question: is Sam Bradford the guy you are describing? Is Jimmy Clausen?

What about the projection systems that view these guys as players who will likely be successful, but not historic? Are they wrong? More specifically, what traits do these two have in common with players who can score 100 in QB rating year in and year out...the best of the best.

And what of players such as Roethlisberger, who seem to produce in big games, but just don't have the consistent production to be in big games on a year to year basis. Do you draft that kind of player in the top five? Or do you look for someone better?

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I have yet to insult you. Unless you are insulted by being called out on being hypocrtical in the context of this thread. But hey, that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010
JC has proven nothing but he's a consistent loser. Who's incapable of taking the team on is shoulders. Blame whomever you want. The fact remains he's a proven loser.

Instead of debating JC's abysmal 20-32 record as a starter, you decided to divorce the subject of the debate(Campbell) and instead took a personal jab at me.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Given that I had the Colts today, I'll just point out that it takes one to know one.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Jason Campbell's career record has nothing to do with you being a loser

You started this fight and I'm going to finish it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

Instead of debating JC's abysmal 20-32 record as a starter, you decided to divorce the subject of the debate(Campbell) and instead took a personal jab at me.

I thought the subject was losers and their nature.

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

You started this fight and I'm going to finish it.

Nope. Sorry. You're not, because there are other people offering relevant (if off-topic) debates about football in this thread, so it's safe to say you've exceeded your value to me. Thanks for your time.

[53Fan]

The Viking did exactly what they needed to do at the start of the game. Score and quiet down the crowd. They couldn't start much better than that. N.O. needs to march right back.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

The Viking did exactly what they needed to do at the start of the game. Score and quiet down the crowd. They couldn't start much better than that. N.O. needs to march right back.

Agreed. New Orleans has been that kind of team all season.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

vikings and saints doing what they have been doing all year.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I thought the subject was losers and their nature.

The subject was about Jason Campbell. So I guess you could say it was about that proven loser.

Nope. Sorry. You're not, because there are other people offering relevant (if off-topic) debates about football in this thread, so it's safe to say you've exceeded your value to me. Thanks for your time.

I agree, Jason Campbell is irrelevant, being that he's a proven loser. So please run off and debate something relevant. Like the QB we'll be drafting in the first round. Who'll replace that loser QB JC.

[Longtimefan]

Are we looking at another shootout?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

The subject was about Jason Campbell. So I guess you could say it was about that proven loser.



I agree, Jason Campbell is irrelevant, being that he's a proven loser. So please run off and debate something relevant. Like the QB we'll be drafting in the first round. Who'll replace that loser QB JC.

But don't you see why you're a hypocrite?

Jason Campbell (not the subject of this thread, unfortunately) loses football games, he's (in your mind) a loser.

You pick football games, act really arrogantly about your choice, lose convincingly, etc. makes you a loser.

Thus the "takes one to know one comment". I was appealing to your ability to identify losers. Coming from you, it was actually just sort of funny. 53 fan said it way more eloquently than I did...he tends to do that sort of thing.

This isn't necessarily the thread for it, but we have been discussing the 4th pick. Some people want real issues addressed, while others care not if this team keeps losing or not, but rather, whether they can replace the (productive) players who they do not like. That's also a trait of a loser, but again, and additional evidence that you are, in fact, a loser just seems like overkill at this point.

[skins89moss]

After watching the Redskins for over 30 years it appears to me after this season we have more pressing needs than drafting a QB with the 4th pick in the draft to sit the entire 2010 season. I would prefer us take a stud LT and then get a nice OG in the 2nd round. These players of course need to be starters in 2010 or no need to pick them this high.