Warrior General Games

PTT Dark Knights and Mediterranean Mayhem.

This is the first official rivalry in the league where the two teams have played each other. Mayhem will see the Dark Knights in the Conference Championship for a rematch.

No offense to Mayhem, but they got handled like a red headed step child in that game. Under 150 yards of offense, around 40 percent completions and gave up 370 yards with about 70 percent completion. The scoreboard doesn't reflect the dominance of that game. It might be a rivalry in the sense of two teams who think their team is better, but it's pretty obvious to observers that dont have a dog in that fight who the better team is at this point in the season.

No offense but if you look at the game, even though the yardage is heavily favoring PTT who was the only team to score an OFFENSIVE TD? Not them. They scored a TD off a lucky break from an interception. They were forced to kick 3 field goals. So before you go jumping to conclusions, look at the game. The only player on their team that made the top 5 perfermors was their kicker. The other 4 were from Mayhem. Don't let one game fool you.

It was a good game both ways, yes we didn't produce offensively which has a lot to do with our OC going pass heavy for whatever reason. It would have been a lot different if we would have came out running more. I mean I looked at the game scouting report the greasemonkey gives you, the quarter we went run heavy we put up more yards than the other 3 combined. Whatever his reason was for going pass heavy, I don't know. But don't let 1 game fool you.

I actually like the fact that the prediction for standing has Mayhem going 6-10. When we get into the playoffs with a record of 15-1, don't say I didn't warn you. Yards don't prove anything if you can't score a TD.

I mean they got within 10 yards of our goal 2 times the entire game. both times they were forced to kick a FG. 1 they missed and 1 they made. Yeah you can put up yards all day long, but if you can't produce a TD it doesn't mean that much. If they didn't get that intereception, the game would have been 7-9. so please, other than yards, where is the dominance?

Kiev is right. Kiev lost a close game themselves to Milan. I personally believe these were 2 of the 4 best teams in Alpha. It might be the development of a rivalry. All our games for "front runners" are big when we play the other few elite teams. There is alot of football left.

If your two teams get to the playoffs with 1 loss in Zeta, then Seric is right. For now, I think Kiev is right in the sense its too early........

I do think Mayhem and PTT have very good teams, but there are no guarentees (i butchered that spelling) that you will meet again.

You answered your own question. That game could have easily been 35-14. I'm not saying your team is terrible or arguing game plans, but a team that can do that kind of damage to you is just better than you at this point in the season.

I agree there is no guarantees that we'll meet again, but it doesn't hurt to have a little rivalry between two teams. Which it may be a 4 way split as 2 more teams have 33 overall now in Zeta, Crimea Sea Dragons and Kazan Bears. I was just pointing out that other than the yardage, there was no real dominance.

They didn't produce an offensive TD, forced to kick 4 field goals (missed one), and got a lucky break on an interception, that I will state now shouldn't have been an interception but that's just me being bias. We both got an interception but we forced 3 fumbles and recovered 1 of them, while they didn't force a single fumble.

Other than yards, they didn't dominate us.

Originally posted by jaimevick
You answered your own question. That game could have easily been 35-14. I'm not saying your team is terrible or arguing game plans, but a team that can do that kind of damage to you is just better than you at this point in the season.

Where did I say that we were better than them? I don't remember saying that at all. Don't put words there that aren't there.

I'm not knocking your team at all. They ran 85 offensive plays. I don't know what their depth looks like, but I would guess that you are deeper on defense than they are on offense. Otherwise, that game would have been ugly.

I'll give you that, we are definately deep defensively. But I strongly believe that if we would have came out with a different gameplan, it would have been a different story. We may still have lost, no one knows, but we would have produced more offensively.

The bottom line is there is a lot of football left. Zeta is playing out the same way. I believe Kiev is the 4th best team Now, but come the end of the season they could be the best. Shit look at Red Fort in Alpah, they were on par with Warsaw not too long ago. Now they are 2-0 and have a much improved roster. Who is to say they can't add a couple more guys and get hot in the playoffs?

I think the situation in Alpha is similiar. I agree both teams that played today are very good and have very good chances of making lots of noise in the playoffs. This game would have been bigger had it been late in the year as opposed to game 2.

Our game against Hague is week 4. I would think they would be our rival, and they are in a sense. Neither of us had much to do with our roster because we filled our teams well early. The problem with that is, everyone else around us is improving. Kiev and Milan face similiar issues. Our game against Milan might be the biggest in Alpha if Milan can hold serve the rest the way and we live up to our billing. If Hague and Kiev put the beatdown on us, the complexion of that Milan game late in the year changes big time!

Its fun and the banter on the boards is entertaining. Always fun to speculate/debate.

Originally posted by Seric
I mean they got within 10 yards of our goal 2 times the entire game. both times they were forced to kick a FG. 1 they missed and 1 they made. Yeah you can put up yards all day long, but if you can't produce a TD it doesn't mean that much. If they didn't get that intereception, the game would have been 7-9. so please, other than yards, where is the dominance?
I didn't put words anywhere. I said you answered your own question.
yards are a good judge of progress throughout the game. They had over 80 offensive plays. I know you said your offense was pass happy, but that doesnt say a whole lot about your defenses ability to stop them either.

Originally posted by jaimevick
Originally posted by Seric

I mean they got within 10 yards of our goal 2 times the entire game. both times they were forced to kick a FG. 1 they missed and 1 they made. Yeah you can put up yards all day long, but if you can't produce a TD it doesn't mean that much. If they didn't get that intereception, the game would have been 7-9. so please, other than yards, where is the dominance?

I didn't put words anywhere. I said you answered your own question.
yards are a good judge of progress throughout the game.

Why not bold the whole part of the end instead of just yards and where is the dominance? I said OTHER than yards, where is the dominance? Very key word in that statement was other. One you seem to look over. I agree they dominated us in the yards department. But that's it. They couldn't produce a TD offensively. The were forced to 3 field goals. Only got within 10 yards of our goal 2 times the entire game.

So OTHER than the yards, they didn't dominate us as much as you're making it out to be. Yes they got over 300 yards on us. But they couldn't score a TD in ALL of those yards. If they didn't intercept that pass, it would have been 7-9 final score.
-------------------------------------

On a lighter side of things, if it seems like I am getting pissed, I don't mean it to come across that way.

I typed it once and lost wireless connection, then typed it and left out the plays

Originally posted by Seric
Originally posted by jaimevick

You answered your own question. That game could have easily been 35-14. I'm not saying your team is terrible or arguing game plans, but a team that can do that kind of damage to you is just better than you at this point in the season.

Where did I say that we were better than them? I don't remember saying that at all. Don't put words there that aren't there.


The bold is the comment I was talking about. I never once said that we were better than them.