Good luck Hustlers.
Not really, I'd actually prefer we won.
Not really, I'd actually prefer we won.
Voltron
offline
offline
Wow, not even sure how to explain this loss.
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
Epark88
offline
offline
Simple explanation: this season we've had a penchant for 2nd-half surges and late heroics. Don't feel bad, SF isn't alone in this regard.
Rawr Rawr was at his QB-munching best, but we had juuust enough 'Hustle' in us to still grab the W. Nice game by your guys...
Rawr Rawr was at his QB-munching best, but we had juuust enough 'Hustle' in us to still grab the W. Nice game by your guys...
LaSeeno
offline
offline
Originally posted by Voltron
Wow, not even sure how to explain this loss.
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
A A Are you complaining?
Wow, not even sure how to explain this loss.
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
A A Are you complaining?
fool
offline
offline
Originally posted by Voltron
Wow, not even sure how to explain this loss.
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
I wasn't joking when I called them "tricky".
Wow, not even sure how to explain this loss.
Outgained you in yards, intercepted you twice to our zero ints, sacked you 4 times to your 0 sacks, Yet we still lost. lol
I wasn't joking when I called them "tricky".
koldfront
offline
offline
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Ronin 49
offline
offline
Hmm. Good game Hustlers. I haven't watched it yet but sounds like the turnovers did us in.
Voltron
offline
offline
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
LaSeeno
offline
offline
Originally posted by Voltron
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
50 yards? Wow!!!!!!!! 2 of those sacks were like back to back, big deal.
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
50 yards? Wow!!!!!!!! 2 of those sacks were like back to back, big deal.
koldfront
offline
offline
Originally posted by Voltron
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
you just can't ever say anything nice can you?
lemme give you a lesson in football real quick son...sacks are NOT turnovers...you gave up the ball more than we did...therefore you lost by 6...makes perfect sense to those of us with anything higher than a third grade education.
what that means is...we made use of the times you guys GAVE us the ball. as would any good football team. notice you guys made use of OUR turnovers as well. but in a perfectly balanced game between two well matched opponents, yards and anything else doesn't usually mean squat. it's all about who gives up the ball more. and that's what this was.
i already know that arguing with you is pointless so this is more of a point out for anyone else who has the same question.
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
you just can't ever say anything nice can you?
lemme give you a lesson in football real quick son...sacks are NOT turnovers...you gave up the ball more than we did...therefore you lost by 6...makes perfect sense to those of us with anything higher than a third grade education.
what that means is...we made use of the times you guys GAVE us the ball. as would any good football team. notice you guys made use of OUR turnovers as well. but in a perfectly balanced game between two well matched opponents, yards and anything else doesn't usually mean squat. it's all about who gives up the ball more. and that's what this was.
i already know that arguing with you is pointless so this is more of a point out for anyone else who has the same question.
Last edited Aug 30, 2008 16:04:28
Voltron
offline
offline
Originally posted by koldfront
Originally posted by Voltron
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
you just can't ever say anything nice can you?
lemme give you a lesson in football real quick son...sacks are NOT turnovers...you gave up the ball more than we did...therefore you lost by 6...makes perfect sense to those of us with anything higher than a third grade education.
what that means is...we made use of the times you guys GAVE us the ball. as would any good football team. notice you guys made use of OUR turnovers as well. but in a perfectly balanced game between two well matched opponents, yards and anything else doesn't usually mean squat. it's all about who gives up the ball more. and that's what this was.
i already know that arguing with you is pointless so this is more of a point out for anyone else who has the same question.
That's right! Sacks don't mean a thing! Btw, how's your DE doing again koldfront?
Btw that bolded part is my favorite line of your post. Because Hustlers are known for being so nice right!
Originally posted by Voltron
Originally posted by koldfront
yeah...and we'll just pretend the 3 (count em) fumbles by SF had nothing to do with the outcome.
Yea and we'll just pretend those 2 int, 4 sacks and 50+ more yards then you meant nothing.
you just can't ever say anything nice can you?
lemme give you a lesson in football real quick son...sacks are NOT turnovers...you gave up the ball more than we did...therefore you lost by 6...makes perfect sense to those of us with anything higher than a third grade education.
what that means is...we made use of the times you guys GAVE us the ball. as would any good football team. notice you guys made use of OUR turnovers as well. but in a perfectly balanced game between two well matched opponents, yards and anything else doesn't usually mean squat. it's all about who gives up the ball more. and that's what this was.
i already know that arguing with you is pointless so this is more of a point out for anyone else who has the same question.
That's right! Sacks don't mean a thing! Btw, how's your DE doing again koldfront?
Btw that bolded part is my favorite line of your post. Because Hustlers are known for being so nice right!
Last edited Aug 30, 2008 19:10:05
blitzballer
offline
offline
Everytime we beat a good team, the other team does nothing but bicker, argue, bitch, moan, groan, and make excuses.
HKH
HKH
lump7502
offline
offline
coming from the team who has claimed the most tactical snafu's in asia you reap what you sew
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
