prove it
scar988
offline
offline
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
moneymonty
offline
offline
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Last edited Jul 2, 2008 15:42:34
Michael Vick
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
moneymonty
offline
offline
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Michael Vick
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
moneymonty
offline
offline
you don't even have a player in our league. are you just trying to jump ahead of scar988 when Lane Aviva starts handing out knobbers? i'm calling dirty bocce on you.
Michael Vick
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
you don't even have a player in our league. are you just trying to jump ahead of scar988 when Lane Aviva starts handing out knobbers? i'm calling dirty bocce on you.
I'm a GM on the Royals and I hope to be able to add a player on to the team when I get enough FP
you don't even have a player in our league. are you just trying to jump ahead of scar988 when Lane Aviva starts handing out knobbers? i'm calling dirty bocce on you.
I'm a GM on the Royals and I hope to be able to add a player on to the team when I get enough FP
moneymonty
offline
offline
you are a GM for three teams, have two players, and will add a player when you get enough FP. are you seven? i guess you won't be getting any action with Lane Aviva after all.
moneymonty
offline
offline
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
the Royals are by far the most dominate team in the league. no one would argue with that. if they have added a few players during the course of the season doesn't it make sense that teams that are a lot worse off have added more players.
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
the Royals are by far the most dominate team in the league. no one would argue with that. if they have added a few players during the course of the season doesn't it make sense that teams that are a lot worse off have added more players.
Michael Vick
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
you are a GM for three teams, have two players, and will add a player when you get enough FP. are you seven? i guess you won't be getting any action with Lane Aviva after all.
That's kind of misleading as I don't come up with gameplans for 2 of those teams. I just recruit on those 2 teams.
you are a GM for three teams, have two players, and will add a player when you get enough FP. are you seven? i guess you won't be getting any action with Lane Aviva after all.
That's kind of misleading as I don't come up with gameplans for 2 of those teams. I just recruit on those 2 teams.
Michael Vick
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
the Royals are by far the most dominate team in the league. no one would argue with that. if they have added a few players during the course of the season doesn't it make sense that teams that are a lot worse off have added more players.
Yeah they've added players to make themselves better. If they add players they are usually better after adding players but if they didn't add any players they would be terrible. Adding players usually helps teams unless the team is adding players that don't deserve to be in that league.
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by BroncosBeTheBest
Originally posted by moneymonty
Originally posted by scar988
record alone indicates we should be ranked in the 4-8 range. and we beat the Misc manlets and put up a good fight against Berlin, had we had a lucky bounce against Berlin and the FG went through for the Roundhose kicks we would be 8-2 and not 6-4.
record is not an accurate indicator of how good a team is in a new league. too much change in roster during the course of the season. much like your record gives the impression you are average when you are in fact below average. you finish in the 4-8 range and Lane Aviva will suck your dick.
Chemistry doesn't have that much of an affect on a team's play and his chemistry isn't very low anyway
i'm not talking about chemistry, i'm talking about actual changes to the roster. how many teams have all the same players they did for the first game of the season.
Roster changes affect chemistry and unless he's trading higher lvl players for lower lvl players he's not really hurting his team. Also our team has pretty much the same roster from week 1. We only added a few free agents throughout the season
the Royals are by far the most dominate team in the league. no one would argue with that. if they have added a few players during the course of the season doesn't it make sense that teams that are a lot worse off have added more players.
Yeah they've added players to make themselves better. If they add players they are usually better after adding players but if they didn't add any players they would be terrible. Adding players usually helps teams unless the team is adding players that don't deserve to be in that league.
scar988
offline
offline
Originally posted by moneymonty
you don't even have a player in our league. are you just trying to jump ahead of scar988 when Lane Aviva starts handing out knobbers? i'm calling dirty bocce on you.
dude, can you please quit trolling? it's getting old and bringing up a player of mine is pointless. so please, just let it go. I don;'t even see why you are targeting that particular one in the first place.
you don't even have a player in our league. are you just trying to jump ahead of scar988 when Lane Aviva starts handing out knobbers? i'm calling dirty bocce on you.
dude, can you please quit trolling? it's getting old and bringing up a player of mine is pointless. so please, just let it go. I don;'t even see why you are targeting that particular one in the first place.
Last edited Jul 2, 2008 19:20:02
moneymonty
offline
offline
way to ruin the setup for a solid joke
correct repsonse: "why would Lane Aviva suck my dick"
my retort: "because you sure as hell aren't putting your dick in my mouth"
see how much better that would have been?
do you know what trolling is? i could go and post in the league forum for your one player not on the Draftniks and talk shit about how crappy that player/team is, although i'm sure you'd make an argument they are better than their 1-9 record shows. most likely due to the mid-season addition of a real solid NT. i can understand you are a little sensitive about he Draftniks. after all, you own the team and most of the players. if you continue to bitch about the rankings without making any rational arguments i will continue to reply.
correct repsonse: "why would Lane Aviva suck my dick"
my retort: "because you sure as hell aren't putting your dick in my mouth"
see how much better that would have been?
do you know what trolling is? i could go and post in the league forum for your one player not on the Draftniks and talk shit about how crappy that player/team is, although i'm sure you'd make an argument they are better than their 1-9 record shows. most likely due to the mid-season addition of a real solid NT. i can understand you are a little sensitive about he Draftniks. after all, you own the team and most of the players. if you continue to bitch about the rankings without making any rational arguments i will continue to reply.
scar988
offline
offline
actually those pitbulls suck royal donkey balls. and I only made the players to be depth for the most part. a good portion of the players I have will be on another team next year due to a friend and I having a talent exchange.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
