The "Other" Sat Game Thread

[TobyTyler]

Oh, wow, I always thought you two were just horsing around.

I am, as always, but I'm not so sure he is sometimes. Clyde and me, now that's more just effing around.

 

[ChrisPozz]

[/B]

I am, as always, but I'm not so sure he is sometimes. Clyde and me, now that's more just effing around.

Consider me lost. Isn't the fact that right now I'm responding to you, and have have many times before in the past proof that I'm not ignoring you? Not that you'd even care if I did or did not.

This is the first time I've heard reference to an actual ignroe button on here. I've heard people say it in the gameday threads before but I thought it was something they downloaded off the web instead of something you can do on these boards. I've never ran into an ignore button anywhere when looking around the page and I'm not incredibly smart with those sorts of things on the web either.

 

[Bemular]

I am, as always, but I'm not so sure he is sometimes. Clyde and me, now that's more just effing around.

That is exactly what I thought about you two, which is probably why I thought the same of you and Chris.

 

[Bemular]

Consider me lost. Isn't the fact that right now I'm responding to you, and have have many times before in the past proof that I'm not ignoring you? Not that you'd even care if I did or did not.

This is the first time I've heard reference to an actual ignroe button on here. I've heard people say it in the gameday threads before but I thought it was something they downloaded off the web instead of something you can do on these boards. I've never ran into an ignore button anywhere when looking around the page and I'm not incredibly smart with those sorts of things on the web either.

There we go - exactly. Brother T, I don't think the Pozz-Meister has you on ignore.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Also, anybody can feel free to go ahead and think that I have him or anyone else on this ignore list. I won't lose any sleep over it. Ha. I don't have anybody on it, though. Now that I've cleared that up, though, anybody want to tell me where this list is?

I would have liked one on the ESPN boards because there were more "trolls" on those boards and quite a few people who'd come around to advertise things. Those really would have been the only people I'd have put on the list.

If I'm going to ignore anybody on here, though, I'll do it without adding them to the list. I can withdraw myself pretty good from getting into something with somebody on a message board, especially if I know it won't contribute to the overall quality of the board, which is a big reason for coming to this board and a big reason why I've withdrew myself from so many other arguments in the past.

 

[TobyTyler]

Consider me lost. Isn't the fact that right now I'm responding to you, and have have many times before in the past proof that I'm not ignoring you? Not that you'd even care if I did or did not.

This is the first time I've heard reference to an actual ignroe button on here. I've heard people say it in the gameday threads before but I thought it was something they downloaded off the web instead of something you can do on these boards. I've never ran into an ignore button anywhere when looking around the page and I'm not incredibly smart with those sorts of things on the web either.

Good to hear. I was half joking anyway about your seeming exasperation with me sometimes. And I would care if you had me on ignore because I wouldn't get the answers to the questions you so ably provide to those of us too lazy or too computer illiterate to look up.

All is good from this side. I would never feel the need to use the "ignore" button either. I don't think I could imagine myself taking anything said on here that seriously

 

[TobyTyler]

Also, anybody can feel free to go ahead and think that I have him or anyone else on this ignore list. I won't lose any sleep over it. Ha. I don't have anybody on it, though. Now that I've cleared that up, though, anybody want to tell me where this list is?

I would have liked one on the ESPN boards because there were more "trolls" on those boards and quite a few people who'd come around to advertise things. Those really would have been the only people I'd have put on the list.

If I'm going to ignore anybody on here, though, I'll do it without adding them to the list. I can withdraw myself pretty good from getting into something with somebody on a message board, especially if I know it won't contribute to the overall quality of the board, which is a big reason for coming to this board and a big reason why I've withdrew myself from so many other arguments in the past.

All joking aside, Chris, if that is your intent for coming here, you do a very good job of it.

 

[ChrisPozz]

All joking aside, Chris, if that is your intent for coming here, you do a very good job of it.

Thank you.

 

[Bemular]

Good to hear. I was half joking anyway about your seeming exasperation with me sometimes. And I would care if you had me on ignore because I wouldn't get the answers to the questions you so ably provide to those of us too lazy or too computer illiterate to look up.

All is good from this side. I would never feel the need to use the "ignore" button either. I don't think I could imagine myself taking anything said on here that seriously

Eggs-actly.

 

[TobyTyler]

Thank you.

Now say something nice about me : )

 

[TobyTyler]

Eggs-actly.

I know, right?

 

[MHSL82]

Was Peyton Manning's arm strength a problem?

This article was the worst one I've read from Rosenthal. It's so disorganized. It suggests something, talks about it as if it's to be proven, and then he disproves it. Then, when giving an alternative to the suggestion, he later hedges on it saying that it might be because of the suggestion (that Manning couldn't throw in the cold because of his injury). He later concludes that it was Fox playing not to lose and not being aggressive, not really committing to whether the non-aggressiveness was due to Peyton's arm strength. He goes through a few plays contradicting each other and saying there was no effect, but points them out as if they do. It's like he wanted to say it without getting criticized for saying it. Man, I'm starting to sound like him.

 

[TobyTyler]

Those bastards in Denver fired their secondary coach today tryng to deflect blame away from themselves for fucking up that game.

 

[SFAnthem]

Also, anybody can feel free to go ahead and think that I have him or anyone else on this ignore list. I won't lose any sleep over it. Ha. I don't have anybody on it, though. Now that I've cleared that up, though, anybody want to tell me where this list is?

I would have liked one on the ESPN boards because there were more "trolls" on those boards and quite a few people who'd come around to advertise things. Those really would have been the only people I'd have put on the list.

If I'm going to ignore anybody on here, though, I'll do it without adding them to the list. I can withdraw myself pretty good from getting into something with somebody on a message board, especially if I know it won't contribute to the overall quality of the board, which is a big reason for coming to this board and a big reason why I've withdrew myself from so many other arguments in the past.

I've got trolls on ignore and I think its great. I can still see other's responses to them and have the option of reading what they wrote if I want to.

Works out for me, as the only thing I read are posts of value to me.

To each his own and btw, thanks for all the good info you put up here

 

[ChrisPozz]

Those bastards in Denver fired their secondary coach today tryng to deflect blame away from themselves for fucking up that game.

He wasn't fired despite reports that suggested that. His contract expired and the Broncos decided not to renew it. Now one can say, and many are, that they didn't renew it based on that game, but I don't believe that what so ever myself.

 

[TobyTyler]

He wasn't fired despite reports that suggested that. His contract expired and the Broncos decided not to renew it. Now one can say, and many are, that they didn't renew it based on that game, but I don't believe that what so ever myself.

Why?

 

[ChrisPozz]

[/B]

Why?

Because I don't believe the Broncos decided not to renew his contract based on what happened in one game. That game may have confirmed something that was happening over many weeks, but I don't believe for one second he went from being completely or somewhat safe to out of a job based on that game alone.

 

[TobyTyler]

Because I don't believe the Broncos decided not to renew his contract based on what happened in one game. That game may have confirmed something that was happening over many weeks, but I don't believe for one second he went from being completely or somewhat safe to out of a job based on that game alone.

The timing seems very suspect since Fox and Elway were clearly on the hot seat for the ridiculous clock manaegement at the end of regulation. They seemed to be trying to do damage control in the media and I thought the DBs coach might have been a good scapegoat.

 

[ChrisPozz]

The timing seems very suspect since Fox and Elway were clearly on the hot seat for the ridiculous clock manaegement at the end of regulation. They seemed to be trying to do damage control in the media and I thought the DBs coach might have been a good scapegoat.

The timing of it isn't weird to me because his contract expired at the end of their season. His standing with the team may not have been good for some time prior to that game like I said, but once again I'd have a hard time believing he went from being relatively safe to not being brought back solely or predominately based on one game.