Man....it's too bad Diggy's father wasn't as clueless about fornicating as Diggy is about football.
Regarding the topic of quality wins-- I don't expect this to settle the debate, but if anyone is interested the guys over at Football Outsiders did some research a while back on the importance of beating good teams versus beating cupcakes and how it relates to being a Superbowl contender.
Guts and Stomps
http://www.footballoutsiders.c...-fox-guts-and-stomps
For those who don't wish to read the entire article:
The Packers haven't beaten that many "quality" teams this year. But they have generally taken care of business, sans Tampa Bay, against the weaker teams.
Guts and Stomps
http://www.footballoutsiders.c...-fox-guts-and-stomps
For those who don't wish to read the entire article:
quote:
People want to believe that the teams that can win the close ones are championship teams. But as counter-intuitive as it sounds, championship teams are generally defined by their ability to easily win games over inferior teams.
Football games are often decided by just one or two plays -- a missed field goal, a fumble that bounces one way instead of the other, a fourth down where officials spot the ball two inches from the first down marker. One dropped pass short-circuits a last-minute comeback. A cornerback smothers his receiver all day, only to get beat once and give up the winning touchdown.
The team that comes out with the victory in a tight game is one step closer to the postseason. But has that team really proven that it is better than its opponent? There are many times where two teams are evenly matched, and if they played again the next week the result might just as well go the other way.
When a team blows out its opponent, however, one unlucky bounce or missed kick isn't going to change the result. A lopsided win provides pretty good proof that the winner is a better team than the loser. That's why the teams that meet on Super Bowl Sunday are usually the teams that won a lot of games by big margins during the regular season.
The Packers haven't beaten that many "quality" teams this year. But they have generally taken care of business, sans Tampa Bay, against the weaker teams.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
GD, the recent couple superbowls is a pretty small sample size? No?
There have been 88 playoff games since the 2000 season. Of those, teams had the same number of regular season wins in 16 games. Of the 72 games were a team had a edge in regular season wins, the team with the better regular season win total won 47 games, or about 65%. When I say, we need to be able to show that we can beat these teams.... im not quite sure what the regular season corelation to this is, but it seems to me that logically it would have some significance.
Another thing is, these teams that we have not beaten this year will most likely have home field advantage on us. Home teams won 52 of 80 playoff games, or 65%. That is higher than the regular season home team win rate of about 60%.
The win rate of 65% for teams with a better record and the 65% home team win rate suggest that regular season records and the ability to beat these teams that have good records do mean something in the playoffs to me.
Well 2005 is the as far back as Cold Hard Football Facts goes for their Quality Standings is 2005 so I don't have data to back up my claim further than that.
With that being said, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove with this post? Are you trying to tell us that having a winning record in the regular season and having homefield advantage in the playoffs is a good thing? I'm 100% sure everyone on this board knows that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, you just quoted a bunch of useless statistics. You keep saying that you're not optimistic about this Packers team or their future because they haven't beaten any good teams. I'm not arguing that, they've beaten 2 teams. The reality is though, there's no trend to suggest that having a winning record against good teams in the regular season leads to a SB win or even a SB appearance...none at all. It doesn't point the other way though, there is no trend, there's no correlation between beating "good" teams and winning in the playoffs.
I'm not trying to disprove your notion that the Packers haven't proven they can beat good teams (that is your argument right?). They have won 2 games out of 5 against quality opponents. So in that respect, you're correct that they haven't proven they can beat good teams. Problem is though, that stat doesn't really mean anything as it relates to the future of this team. Teams fade or get hot, freak injuries occur, etc. To try and say the Packers won't be able to do anything in the playoffs because they haven't beaten anyone is simply just wrong, it doesn't prove they will do anything either though. If they're 1 and done it doesn't prove this point and if they win it all it doesn't prove it. It's meaningless.
I guess you're redefining what I considered a quality opponent. I really dont think Baltimore or Dallas are going to even make the playoffs, so I just no not see them as "quality". Granted, they have a chance to, but I stuck with teams that are likely to make the playoffs. 4 in the AFC and 5 in the NFC (including Green Bay). Someone asked me to define what I thought the upper echelon of teams are in the NFL so I answered the best I could with the top 25% of teams. Of those teams, we are 0-3.
I understand your point GD, and I respect the fact that you do the work to support your opinion as opposed to just lob insults and act a fool. I also, cant quite find the correct research that would validate my point. But, the research I have found does show that 65% of the time the team with the better record (ie: the better team) ends up winning. What I was trying to say about the Home Team thing is that usually the better team ends up playing at home, which compounds our problem (if it were a neutral site - the statistic that I provided would be less confounding). However, when we qualify for the playoffs, most likely all of our games will be on the road which will add to the problem for us specifically in beating those teams. I was looking for something that would say that once teams get to the playoffs records don't matter.. everyone is 0-0.. and away we go. But, from what I can tell.. the "better" or "teams with higher win percentage" do win about 2/3 times on average since 2000. I wish I could support my point better that beating better teams during the regular season gives some kind of edge to teams in the playoffs when it comes time to prove it on the field again.. but there is no research to support that. Only research that the teams with the better records tend to win more often that the teams without the better records.. go figure.
I hope that Green Bay can go into the WC round of the playoffs with confidence and steamroll a few teams, but I am a firm believer in having those signature wins and wins you can really hang your hat on prior to the playoffs. I dont think it's a bad thing and I think it would help. Unfortunately, we dont have one of those yet. But as some other posters have said, we can only play who we are scheduled and the most important thing right now is to win these last 3 and play our hand as dealt (whether in Philly/Dallas(i wish) or AZ)
To those of you that took the time to actually have a civilized discourse. I thank you. I apologize that I did not take the high road throughout this whole discussion, but understand it's pretty tough when being baited every other post. I understand some of you dont like what I think about Ted Thompson... yeah, i dont like him, i doubt I ever will. But, I do want the Packers to win. I dont care if you believe it or not, that is the bottom line for me for this season.. next... 2011.. 2012. Whenever. If the Packers win and win a superbowl, ill be f*cking happy as hell. Until that point, I doubt I will see eye to eye with you guys on Ted. We will have to disagree. I just do not like his plan when it comes to winning a Super Bowl. Keeping a young and talented team, ok.. i get it. But as we saw last season and even this season, we just seem to be not quite there yet. In year 5, I would hope you guys find this a little concerning too.
I bear no ill will to anyone on the board.. even artist and henry who i poke fun of a little. We are all fans of the same team and I have enjoyed posting with you guys since 2002.
I understand your point GD, and I respect the fact that you do the work to support your opinion as opposed to just lob insults and act a fool. I also, cant quite find the correct research that would validate my point. But, the research I have found does show that 65% of the time the team with the better record (ie: the better team) ends up winning. What I was trying to say about the Home Team thing is that usually the better team ends up playing at home, which compounds our problem (if it were a neutral site - the statistic that I provided would be less confounding). However, when we qualify for the playoffs, most likely all of our games will be on the road which will add to the problem for us specifically in beating those teams. I was looking for something that would say that once teams get to the playoffs records don't matter.. everyone is 0-0.. and away we go. But, from what I can tell.. the "better" or "teams with higher win percentage" do win about 2/3 times on average since 2000. I wish I could support my point better that beating better teams during the regular season gives some kind of edge to teams in the playoffs when it comes time to prove it on the field again.. but there is no research to support that. Only research that the teams with the better records tend to win more often that the teams without the better records.. go figure.
I hope that Green Bay can go into the WC round of the playoffs with confidence and steamroll a few teams, but I am a firm believer in having those signature wins and wins you can really hang your hat on prior to the playoffs. I dont think it's a bad thing and I think it would help. Unfortunately, we dont have one of those yet. But as some other posters have said, we can only play who we are scheduled and the most important thing right now is to win these last 3 and play our hand as dealt (whether in Philly/Dallas(i wish) or AZ)
To those of you that took the time to actually have a civilized discourse. I thank you. I apologize that I did not take the high road throughout this whole discussion, but understand it's pretty tough when being baited every other post. I understand some of you dont like what I think about Ted Thompson... yeah, i dont like him, i doubt I ever will. But, I do want the Packers to win. I dont care if you believe it or not, that is the bottom line for me for this season.. next... 2011.. 2012. Whenever. If the Packers win and win a superbowl, ill be f*cking happy as hell. Until that point, I doubt I will see eye to eye with you guys on Ted. We will have to disagree. I just do not like his plan when it comes to winning a Super Bowl. Keeping a young and talented team, ok.. i get it. But as we saw last season and even this season, we just seem to be not quite there yet. In year 5, I would hope you guys find this a little concerning too.
I bear no ill will to anyone on the board.. even artist and henry who i poke fun of a little. We are all fans of the same team and I have enjoyed posting with you guys since 2002.
Just so I understand you diggy, if a team goes 16-0 yet through a quirk in the schedule plays no teams that make the playoffs, that team is no good and would do poorly in the plaoffs because they did not have a quality win for the season? Do I interpet you correctly?
How exactly could you pull your scenario off? You'd have to play at least 3 teams or 4 games if im not mistaken. In division at least 1 (times 2), same conference alternate division at least 1, other conference (one of the divisions) at least 1.
But hypothetically, if you went 16-0 and did that... as a fan of that team, yes.. I would be worried, how could you not? Youre telling me you wouldnt be- hypothetically?
For instance, if the 2009 GBP played Detroit 16 times. I think there is a chance we could win all 16 (10-20% ish?). Same with STL, same with TB (err..).
But per se the Packers took their 2009 schedule and went 16-0. Commissioner Goodell decides to banish the Queens/Bengals/Pokes/Balt/Pitt/AZ from any type of playoff scenario because they were caught tampering with Darren Colledge.... then I would agree with you, 16-0 would beimpressive epic. It's just really far fetched to think about though ammo, i guess its one of those scenarios that could never happen, so you just dismiss it.
But hypothetically, if you went 16-0 and did that... as a fan of that team, yes.. I would be worried, how could you not? Youre telling me you wouldnt be- hypothetically?
For instance, if the 2009 GBP played Detroit 16 times. I think there is a chance we could win all 16 (10-20% ish?). Same with STL, same with TB (err..).
But per se the Packers took their 2009 schedule and went 16-0. Commissioner Goodell decides to banish the Queens/Bengals/Pokes/Balt/Pitt/AZ from any type of playoff scenario because they were caught tampering with Darren Colledge.... then I would agree with you, 16-0 would be
It boils down to this: You just don't make sense.
You love to claim that TT won't spend money. Now, he's the GM. His job is to make the Packers the best team that he can. His own survival as a GM depends on it. He has "X" amount of money to spend. It's NOT his money, so what reason would he have not to use all of the resources he has to do his job?
He DOESN'T get to take the money home, regardless of your ridiculous posts to the contrary. He's NOT the owner, where the money would be coming out of his OWN POCKET. Do the Packers have a self imposed cap that is under the NFL cap? If so, that's not TT's fault, he's just following orders.
Your way of thinking is like someone going Christmas shopping and even though they have finished, they look into their wallet/purse and see they still have a couple hundred bucks left and decide they're not really finished until all of the money is gone.
TT has NO VESTED INTEREST in not spending money! It would actually be easy and LAZY to just spend to the cap limit every year, and then say, "Don't blame me! I spent all that was available to me!" He's NOT the owner, he's the GM where spending money is ADVANTAGIOUS to himself, even if done recklessly. It's not HIS money...so signing a stiff like Haynesworth like you wanted, which many people would argue is more known for stepping on a guy's face than tackling someone, would have been a good idea according to you.
Maybe he spends a little more time than you looking at what money he needs to keep and maintain what he's built as far as the team goes. You seem to think that he gets to take home all of the money he doesn't spend. That's not only ignorant, it's just plain stupid. Like I said...you don't make sense.
You love to claim that TT won't spend money. Now, he's the GM. His job is to make the Packers the best team that he can. His own survival as a GM depends on it. He has "X" amount of money to spend. It's NOT his money, so what reason would he have not to use all of the resources he has to do his job?
He DOESN'T get to take the money home, regardless of your ridiculous posts to the contrary. He's NOT the owner, where the money would be coming out of his OWN POCKET. Do the Packers have a self imposed cap that is under the NFL cap? If so, that's not TT's fault, he's just following orders.
Your way of thinking is like someone going Christmas shopping and even though they have finished, they look into their wallet/purse and see they still have a couple hundred bucks left and decide they're not really finished until all of the money is gone.
TT has NO VESTED INTEREST in not spending money! It would actually be easy and LAZY to just spend to the cap limit every year, and then say, "Don't blame me! I spent all that was available to me!" He's NOT the owner, he's the GM where spending money is ADVANTAGIOUS to himself, even if done recklessly. It's not HIS money...so signing a stiff like Haynesworth like you wanted, which many people would argue is more known for stepping on a guy's face than tackling someone, would have been a good idea according to you.
Maybe he spends a little more time than you looking at what money he needs to keep and maintain what he's built as far as the team goes. You seem to think that he gets to take home all of the money he doesn't spend. That's not only ignorant, it's just plain stupid. Like I said...you don't make sense.
O.K., I forgot that with the newest sceduling you would have to play at least 2 other playoff teams. So even if you went 14-2, locked up homefield throughout the playoffs, being you lost to 2 playoff teams you would be no good? Is that your contention?
I wonder if there is any value placed on hard fought (quality) loses.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
I guess you're redefining what I considered a quality opponent. I really dont think Baltimore or Dallas are going to even make the playoffs, so I just no not see them as "quality".
New England went 11-5 last year, but didn't make the playoffs. Were they not a quality team? Just asking.
quote:
I understand your point GD, and I respect the fact that you do the work to support your opinion as opposed to just lob insults and act a fool. I also, cant quite find the correct research that would validate my point.
Because it doesn't exist (the research). It's purely an opinion of yours that isn't supported by evidence and you simply won't let it go even in the face of more compelling arguments to the contrary. It's also pretty amazing to me that you now appear to be pleading for civility.
Here's a bit of unsolicited advice: if you approached discussions more often with as much civility as you're at least attempting to portray in this post I doubt you'd get pounded upon (deservedly so IMO I might add) nearly as often. Do what you want to, but just sayin'.
quote:
But, the research I have found does show that 65% of the time the team with the better record (ie: the better team) ends up winning. What I was trying to say about the Home Team thing is that usually the better team ends up playing at home, which compounds our problem (if it were a neutral site - the statistic that I provided would be less confounding). However, when we qualify for the playoffs, most likely all of our games will be on the road which will add to the problem for us specifically in beating those teams. I was looking for something that would say that once teams get to the playoffs records don't matter.. everyone is 0-0.. and away we go. But, from what I can tell.. the "better" or "teams with higher win percentage" do win about 2/3 times on average since 2000.
You actually had to do research to figure that out? That better teams win more often? Wow, that's utterly groundbreaking.
quote:
I wish I could support my point better that beating better teams during the regular season gives some kind of edge to teams in the playoffs when it comes time to prove it on the field again.. but there is no research to support that. Only research that the teams with the better records tend to win more often that the teams without the better records.. go figure.
"Go figure" is right. Are you finally willing to concede that you're wr...wroo..wrong, Fonz? My money is on "no", but I've been wrong before.
See how easy it is to admit it?
quote:
I hope that Green Bay can go into the WC round of the playoffs with confidence and steamroll a few teams, but I am a firm believer in having those signature wins and wins you can really hang your hat on prior to the playoffs. I dont think it's a bad thing and I think it would help. Unfortunately, we dont have one of those yet. But as some other posters have said, we can only play who we are scheduled and the most important thing right now is to win these last 3 and play our hand as dealt (whether in Philly/Dallas(i wish) or AZ)
Nobody thinks "it's a bad thing", people are just strongly disagreeing with you that it means anything come playoff time (one recent example was in 07 when we beat the Giants on the road yet still lost to them in the NFCC)
It really just doesn't matter no matter how much you want it to.
quote:
To those of you that took the time to actually have a civilized discourse. I thank you. I apologize that I did not take the high road throughout this whole discussion, but understand it's pretty tough when being baited every other post. I understand some of you dont like what I think about Ted Thompson... yeah, i dont like him, i doubt I ever will. But, I do want the Packers to win. I dont care if you believe it or not, that is the bottom line for me for this season.. next... 2011.. 2012. Whenever. If the Packers win and win a superbowl, ill be f*cking happy as hell. Until that point, I doubt I will see eye to eye with you guys on Ted. We will have to disagree. I just do not like his plan when it comes to winning a Super Bowl. Keeping a young and talented team, ok.. i get it. But as we saw last season and even this season, we just seem to be not quite there yet. In year 5, I would hope you guys find this a little concerning too.
I bear no ill will to anyone on the board.. even artist and henry who i poke fun of a little. We are all fans of the same team and I have enjoyed posting with you guys since 2002.
It's not just this thread that provoked the reaction you've gotten. I see you changed your location. Is this a new, improved diggy? Can you find something else to post about other than your contempt for TT/MM? Time will tell, but I'm not optimistic.
It goes without saying that fans of 31 teams wish their team had won the SB every single year, and there isn't a GM/HC in the league that hasn't made errors in judgement or been subject to fan criticism. They're human beings and it goes with the territory.
How you approach putting forth that criticism goes a long way toward determining how you're treated around here. Once again, just sayin'.
This thread reads a lot better if you have Diggy on ignore.
He sure seems starved for attention.
He sure seems starved for attention.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Just so I understand you diggy, if a team goes 16-0 yet through a quirk in the schedule plays no teams that make the playoffs, that team is no good and would do poorly in the plaoffs because they did not have a quality win for the season? Do I interpet you correctly?
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
How exactly could you pull your scenario off? You'd have to play at least 3 teams or 4 games if im not mistaken. In division at least 1 (times 2), same conference alternate division at least 1, other conference (one of the divisions) at least 1.
But hypothetically, if you went 16-0 and did that... as a fan of that team, yes.. I would be worried, how could you not? Youre telling me you wouldnt be- hypothetically?
As I indicated in a previous post in this thread - which Diggr as ignored. That is almost precisely what happened. Here is a cut & paste from that post:
"The year the Rams went to the SB - and won it - all I heard in the media is that they did not play anyone yet - right up to the time the playoffs started. The truth was the rest of the division was weak. Their non-divisonal games were against against weak teams - the media was right - to a point. What they said on onehand was that they won convincingly, but on the other hand the opposition was weak. They beat 3 very good teams and won the SB beating the only team they played that year that not only defeated them during the season, but was the only team they played that year with a record better than 8-8 - they were the 13-3 Tennesse Titians."
So, that year the Rams played only one team with a record better than 8-8. They played a few with an 8-8 record, but many with worse records. And the one team that ended up with exactly the same record (13-3) as the Rams after 16 games, the Rams lost to. Yet, the Rams win the SB.
This real life event doesn't support anything Diggr asserts.
hey, i saw your post. But i was mired in a lot of other ones. Sorry.
I just did the looking, and youre absolutely right this would be a recent counterexample to my line of thinking. As a fan that would have worried me that they dropped the ball against the 1 team that they played that meant something. However, that is alot smaller sample size 1... than our current sample of 3 (likely playoff teams). The other thing that if I were a fan of the Rams that year that would have made me feel more at ease is that they (including the games they lost) were beating teams by +17.75 points per game. If that isnt crazy ridiculous, I dont know what is.
But alas, you did prove me wrong in this instance (which is amazing, this is about the last team I would have blindly chosen to make that point). Thanks for doing the background work. However, i still think that it does matter statistically to have beaten teams in the upper quartile during the regular season. When I get time later, ill take a look at what the overall record of superbowl teams against teams let's say 10-6 (for the sake of ease) and higher is.
I just did the looking, and youre absolutely right this would be a recent counterexample to my line of thinking. As a fan that would have worried me that they dropped the ball against the 1 team that they played that meant something. However, that is alot smaller sample size 1... than our current sample of 3 (likely playoff teams). The other thing that if I were a fan of the Rams that year that would have made me feel more at ease is that they (including the games they lost) were beating teams by +17.75 points per game. If that isnt crazy ridiculous, I dont know what is.
But alas, you did prove me wrong in this instance (which is amazing, this is about the last team I would have blindly chosen to make that point). Thanks for doing the background work. However, i still think that it does matter statistically to have beaten teams in the upper quartile during the regular season. When I get time later, ill take a look at what the overall record of superbowl teams against teams let's say 10-6 (for the sake of ease) and higher is.
I have to give credit to Diggr for all the work he does around here! Though I must admit I don't understand it all.
Diggy, I don't drink your milkshake!
I pee in your urinal!
I pee in your urinal!
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
New England went 11-5 last year, but didn't make the playoffs. Were they not a quality team? Just asking.
How you approach putting forth that criticism goes a long way toward determining how you're treated around here. Once again, just sayin'.
Well, to answer your second point first. Your pontificating/whining ends right here. then, ok.. i must be the only one. I tried to do my best to bring an analysis of the season to light, it seems to me that like how bad 2008 ended - it wasnt as bad as it should have been (we probably were closer to an 8-8 team, rather than the 6-10 mark we ended with), this seasons 9-4 start has a ring of a false sense of security to me. I know, I dont like Ted/Mike. But, you arent the least bit concerned that our victories are against DET,DET,CHI,CHI,CLE,STL,SF,BAL,DAL losses against MN,MN,CIN,TB. I think it is a legitimate concern. The trend to me says something. If you disagree, that's cool. If you look at reasons why we lost our games, a few things come to mind (penalties, being outcoached, OL play, DL play, and special teams.) Now, I do agree that the current 5 win stretch here has seemingly galvanized the team, but until I see them do it against a team that they will likely be seeing in January.. i'll be skeptical, but still rooting for GB.
As for the whole Sherman is better than TT/MM debate that came up, I do think Sherman was a better coach and GM than TT/MM. I believe that the overall body of work of Sherman versus TT and MM has been better. Do I think TT drafted better, yeah.. for sure. Sherman drafted pretty poorly, but there are more aspects to being a GM than just drafting - it is a results oriented business when the competition was tough as well as weak. What Sherman did was run a team like a team should be run. His teams were for the most part intelligent and coellesced better. He was less focused on rebuilding and more focused on winning now. Is Mike Sherman a guy that I'd want coaching/running a rebuilding franchise? No, but in the NFL.. rebuilding is not as important as getting your players in place to mesh correctly from a GM's standpoint (see Pioli getting players to fit Belichek's team) and as a Coach, taking that talent and continuing it's development and putting the team in the best position to succeed. I do think McCarthy is a loyal coach. I like that. But what I do not like is that his teams commit too many penalties and playcalling in the past has not adapted well to what defenses are doing to them (except for the last few games..)
I do know that alot of you disagree with me. But, it's an opinion.
quote:Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
I have to give credit to Diggr for all the work he does around here! Though I must admit I don't understand it all.
It's ok Pablo. I just enjoy your Location. I loved that rug.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
O.K., I forgot that with the newest sceduling you would have to play at least 2 other playoff teams. So even if you went 14-2, locked up homefield throughout the playoffs, being you lost to 2 playoff teams you would be no good? Is that your contention?
Yes ammo, in this model. As a fan, I would be skeptical and worried. I'd feel better about it because we had a bye though. Dont get me wrong. There is always a case of what if out there. Im saying the general trend probably supports my logic (I need to do the leg work to verify it). Can there be an example of where you're right... absolutely. Coach provided one earlier with the 1999 Rams.
But me personally, as a fan. I'd be worried that we hadn't beaten anyone that year.. just as if.. let's say the Badgers made the BCS championship game somehow and beat no top 25 ranked teams along the way. As a Badger fan, I'd be rooting for them hard.. but would I be worried... you betcha.
I just wish TT would have spent all the cap room before the preseason so we could have brought the telent in and made them familiar with our schemes. That way we would not have had the money to bring in Taucher or to even upgrade Chillar. Oopps that means this thread would have never been started.
Hindsight - What a bite in the arse.
Hindsight - What a bite in the arse.
Some dude on ESPN NFL said the Packers were 'STREAKING' and "The Packers are beginning to resemble a dangerous wild-card team. (Chadiha)
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Yes ammo, in this model. As a fan, I would be skeptical and worried. {snip}
But me personally, as a fan. I'd be worried that we hadn't beaten anyone that year.. {snip} but would I be worried... you betcha.
Something tells me you'll be worried the crap circling the toilet bowl won't flush properly.
Like I said earlier, sit back & enjoy the ride. Try and think positively instead of constantly being negative. You'll like life much better, guaranteed.
Oh yeah, no charge for this advice. Psychiatrists charge $250 an hour
Wondered how a thread about Chillar's signing could run to 10 pages. Since the last time Chillar is mentioned is on page 3, I guess I've got it figured out.
I may not have the right to do this... or it may have already been done, but I really really think this thread is of Historical and Epic proportion.
It needs to be archived forever.
It needs to be archived forever.
If a Poodle shartz in the woods does his owner have to clean it up?
Poodles are a nice way to keep this thread going. Sorry im not helping much.. that Bucks/Lakers game is making me boil over. Meltdown is official. Diggr is on a rampage.