Quote:
Originally posted by Nash+Dec 29 2003, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nash @ Dec 29 2003, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by 92tsiawd84@Dec 29 2003, 11:02 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nash
|
Quote:
@Dec 28 2003, 10:42 PM
I'm glad they lost.* No team that starts off 6-0 then finishes 9-7 deserves to be in the playoffs
|
They would have been 10-6 if they didn't lose.
|
No team who starts of 6-0, and finishes anything less then 11-5 deserves to be in the playoffs. How hard could it be to win atleast half of the games they had leff, Arizona, NY Giants, San Diego, Oakland, Detroit, and Chicago. I mean come on those teams combined record is 28-68, and they could only beat Detroit, a game they just barley pulled off. [/b][/quote]
I am actually in 3 fantasy football leagues and I literally spend tons of time studying players and teams. Although I am a pretty big fan of the vikes I have to admit at times it is hard to be a queens fan. Culpepper is too unpredictable, denard walker personally lost that arizona game with his lackluster effort covering nate pool and anquan boldin, (also thanks kliensausage for touching the onside kick) and biekert is too slow to catch a turtle. Thank god I am getting to blow off some steam here. I still believe in the vikes, but they do need to make some changes on and off the field. Also did anyone see culpepper and moss laughing it up with 2:00 to go on the sidelines??? There was bad playcalling too, just an unfortunate day for the vikes and vikes fans everywhere. :bs:
On a side note, I would expect to see New England in the superbowl. They look like the best overall team as far as on both sides of the ball. what do you all think???
pat
Hybrid Mode
