football_scooter

boo! As mentioned - it was a suspension, and that it has lapsed. But since dual aliases are lot allowed, this is *officially* my last post as football_scooter. :rip: football_scooter, footballs_cooter, etc. Sorry to disappoint y'all. Now if you'll excuse me, i have a toddler to make shishkabobs out of - where's phillybear with that recipe...?

good place for you. you still might want to look into that whole comprehension thing, since you still don't get it. Feel free to disagree with me all you like. I invite the debate - it's why these topics exist. Reading through as you suggest it sure looks like you're the one who can't handle someone disagreeing with you. You resort to insults, personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentations of people's points in order to rip on them if they're not aligned with your opinions. Kind of sad and pathetic, really. But hey - each to their own. Perhaps one day you'll grow up and be ready to have a discussion with someone without needing to resort to personal attacks and threats of banishment by site moderators. I note heartily that nowhere in this response do you address the valid points I've made - no, you just continue to claim that I'm off base without once addressing what i actually said. Brilliant. True troll tactic if I ever saw it. Then the generalizations and repeated assertions that I'm "flat out wrong" because you prop up the obvious straw man argument using *only* last year's stats, or taking my statement out of context - both tools of the committed troll. So in response I'll just recommend reading the post right above yours and you can see how foolish you look for this pathetic rant. In closing I'll say that if you're truly interested in increasing your football knowledge, actually taking the time to read people's posts and responding directly to them rather than taking what they say out of context would be a great start down that long road to intellectual stimulation. I'm afraid you appear to be on an uphill climb though.

Right - because I called myself stupid and an idiot. Interesting. right - because your sample size from just last year with totally different running backs is relevant in the slightest. Pay no never mind to the ineffective running game in Denver that resulted in Tatum Bell becoming a Lion and the Broncos going out and signing Henry. Nah - that's not relevant at all. I was speaking to the coaching philosophy of each team. Shannahan wants to run the ball. Ask anyone if you don't believe me. And I am projecting what i think will be the scenario in 2007, not fixating on what happened in 2006. I believe I specifically mentioned the additions of Welker, Moss and Stallworth in NE, right? Pretty sure I did. Did any of them play in 2006 for the Pats? No? Then why would you even use 2006 stats - did you prove anything? Nope. Just that you're getting desperate to be contradictory. I believe I mentioned the addition of Henry in Denver, which was due to the ineffectiveness of Bell & Bell, right? Yep - sure did. once again - projecting for 2007. Try to concentrate - I know it's hard for you, but context is important still. Nothing's changed there. If anything, your stats from 2006 prove my case further - the Broncos didn't run as much as they wanted to, nor were they as effective as they've been in the past so they went out and signed a RB to facilitate improved RB production so they wouldn't have to lean on a 2nd year passer. NE didn't pass as often or as effectively as they had in the past, so they went out and signed a trio of WRs to facilitate an improved passing game for Brady. Thanks for proving my point for me. Get a clue. You've been owned in here so many times it's getting ridiculous. Looking forward to your next desperate attempt. Oh, I agree - there are no sweeping generalizations or absolute truths in the NFL or life for that matter, which is why I try to avoid them. That's exactly why I took issue with Killer & Dank - they tried to make it sound like I am saying that in EVERY case a young QB will help a RB regardless of team circumstances, which of course I never did. Jamal Lewis is going to be Rat's Ass because that team is going to be Rat's Ass, and the QB is likely to be spotty at best. It's partially why I'm not as high on Winslow or Edwards, but that's a topic for another day. But my point was that on teams with an established offense, capable RB and good O-Line, having a young passer trying to carry the load can be a liability, which is why I've often seen those teams lean more on the RB. I just know the Rat's tenancies as a coach and am using that to project Henry's numbers. I am not as concerned about TDs with Henry there because as a Bell/Bell owner last year I saw that it wasn't a matter of opportunity, it was a matter of ability. Bell & Bell had plenty of opportunity in the red zone, but just couldn't get the job done. Henry's not a bad GL runner and can punch it in. I project 11-14 TDs for him this year.

I'd say that this economy is the perfect time to buy a rental property - duplex or triplex for the very reasons you indicate. People are sheepish to invest until they see the clear signs of the rebound. Until that happens they will rent and bide their time. Rental market is now going to see a slight uptick in pricing....people with rental property aren't dumb...they know that more people will be renting as well. People are losing their homes to foreclosure, and others are hesitant to buy or cannot afford to once interest starts to rise and loans become harder to get. But if you can afford to buy an investment property, a duplex is a great plan right now. You'll have instant tenants, and will be able to get top dollar from them. With the market stagnant you can pick up the property below market and have the two or three renters cover your mortgage.

A solid observation, with one exception....the TDs weren't down because Denver's QB couldn't get into the end zone...the TDs were down because Bell & Bell couldn't punch it in. They had 3 red zone appearances against San Francisco in the last game of the season, and went 4 and out, 4 and out and 3 and out respectively. That includes 7 rushes from the 1 yd line. SF stiffened up and the Bells couldn't punch it in. I don't see that as particularly relevant to Henry, who I believe would have been able to punch it in given some of those same carries. Why would that be a negative about Cutler? If anything your post seems to support my contention: teams with a solid offense but youthful/inexperienced QB tend to lean on the run more than emphasize the pass. I am much more confident that with Henry in the backfield those short yardage situations will translate to TDs, so what's important to me in your post is the 126 yards per game on the ground.

I agree, but I do believe Cutler is one of the good ones. I thought he was actually ebtter than his draft position indicated. I think he is the QB of the future for Denver - but likewise, with only Walker as a talent at WR (and the ancient Rod Smith opposite), and with their up & coming TE breaking his foot and being limited early on, I see Denver as leaning on the run especially, and especially early in the season. with a young QB behind center and not a ton of receiving talent it just seems to make sense that they'd do this. I didn't think that sounded silly or idiotic when I initially posted it, nor do i think it does now. Dank and Killer would disagree I suppose, but only because they're trying to make it into some hard & fast generalized statement or rule. By comparison, Brady is in an offense that has 3 very capable WRs and two good receiving TEs. They have shown a propensity to turn Brady loose and throw early & often, regardless of down or distance. 1st & 10? 3rd and short? Brady passes as much, if not more than he hands it off. It's been the Pats style. Again, I don't think that's a stupid or idiotic observation, and moreover I think it could bear relevance on our collective projections for these two running backs. Given those trends and their respective situations, I'd rather have the back on the run-based team with the young QB than the back on the pass based team with the more experienced (and trusted) QB. Call me crazy I guess. I thought that added something to the debate.

I didn't - why you'd even say that is a mystery. Please quote where I jumped on someone because they "don't follow my logic" - In fact, I jumped on him because he insulted me for my opinion, first telling me I was stupid then telling me I was an idiot. I guess you can't read or something? What, do you trolls all call each other up and coordinate your efforts or something? If I express an opinion, feel free to disagree all day - just leave the personal attacks behind. it's not asking a lot, and Mike already said he'd ban you for it. what else do you need, a written invitation to not attack someone personally for expressing their opinions? Insulting others does nothing to support your point, make you look smarter or impress anyone. Calling someone stupid and telling them they're idiotic only drags down an otherwise interesting debate. But since that's the whole motive of you trolls I don't know why I even bother wasting my breath. I'll just wait for your inevitable bans and move on with the next OTC. Perhaps if you actually read my post that would be clear. I believe I explained it twice and even went as far as providing examples. I believe context is relevant to any discussion. I didn't mention Jamal Lewis, did I? No, I did not. Why? Because I am in the context of this topic, which is comparing the situations of Maroney and Henry. Why you insist on taking one thing I say in one context and projecting it onto another by making these broad generalizations is a mystery and only serves to make you appear clueless as to the topic at hand. Stick with me: this is about Henry who plays with Cutler, a young QB in a relatively mature run-oriented offense; and Brady, an far more experienced QB in a mature pass-oriented offense. please correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me that the experience of the QB's behind them might be a relevant factor in estimating their respective roles in their offenses. No? If not, please explain why not - I'm all ears. Do I need to spell that out for you any more than that? Do you and your boyfriend here actually think that turning that into a sweeping generalization about ALL young QBs and ALL RBs makes your point stronger? Here's a hint: it doesn't. it just makes you look foolish for distracting from the topic at hand. You know, the one in which we're discussing Henry Vs Maroney, a RB with a young QB and a RB with a more mature QB. The context in which I stated that. I have been real, real polite so far, but I have my limits. Get a focking clue or just stop posting in here. You're both so far in left field with this crap that it's laughable.

Matt Jones AKA ''the great white hype'

Once again: read the scenario. Both Vdavis & Cooley went in the 4 picks before yours. So waiting for them isn't a great idea.

I see your problem. You lack comprehension skills. I've now said twice, including in the post you quoted that I was talking about good young QBs. Not bad young QBs as you continue to assume/assert. reading: it's fundamental. But that's ok - keep insulting me for your own lack of comprehension - making yourself look smarter and smarter with every post there.

another good example of where a less than stellar passing game has led to a solid statistical season for the running backs.

No, I most certainly did not make an argument that a RB would do better facing 8 in the box. You assumed that and asserted it as my point. I made no such point and you cannot quote me doing so. You're a fairly unintelligent poster though, so I don't expect much different. Calling my point flawed when you've incorrectly interpreted it for your own convenience is quite creative though. I stated (and read this s-l-o-w-l-y) that a young (note, not a "terrible") QB can be beneficial to a RB's production And I stand by that point That is all I said. No need to interpret it or misrepresent it. No need to assume anything. Look at the examples I provided and see if you can spot a pattern. Here - I'll give you a hint: young QB on a solid team with a good defense and talented RB. in that scenario, the RB gets more touches, and often produces more statistically. Further, the RB acts as an "out" for the young QB, much as LT2 did in his 100 reception season. Thus my point is that Cutler is a young QB on a solid team with a solid O-Line and a D that can keep them in games, but because Cutler still has the reins on, the RB could be leaned on more heavily than Maroney in NE, where Brady runs the show and they are as likely to pass as run regardless of down and distance. I thought this was obvious, but you've demonstrated that you're one of those "special needs" posters, so I've tried to dumb it down a little for you. Now take your insults and smug knowitall horsesh!t somewhere else you gigantic d0uchebag.

a solid point, and something I'm a bit surprised that others haven't mentioned. Also relevant to this scenario is that this league only starts 2 WRs. So if you skip the TE, you're taking a backup WR here. food for thought.

wow - what a completely insulting post. why be that guy? I provided examples of the youthful QB being a benefit to the RB on those teams and I believe I supported it pretty well. Calling me an idiot or stupid really doesn't win you any points in an argument you know...just loses you credibility around here. itsatip.

How is Gore "hype" - he was 3rd in RuYd in the NFL last year and not by much. The team around him has improved on both sides of the ball, which should result in more opportunity and less 8man fronts, yet that's hype? I'd say that's reality.