quote:Originally posted by Max:
I guess this is the latest example of saying something without saying something.
Welcome to Camp CoP. Room for cream in your coffee?
Welcome to Camp CoP. Room for cream in your coffee?
Welcome to Camp CoP. Room for cream in your coffee?
quote:Originally posted by Max:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Here's what is unique. If/When Rodgers sucks, I will be the first to say so. I love the guy, but if you suck and do something stupid, you suck and did something stupid. There will be no sycophantic excuse making. If only the reverse were true.
I guess this is the latest example of saying something without saying something. Is your point that I'm trying to make excuses for Favre or something? Or is this where you say, that wasn't what you meant at all.
Yes, Favre was considered to be a gunslinger. But it's YOUR opinion that there's "no hint of intelligence" there. How can you blame me for drawing the conclusion that you see "no hint of intelligence in Favre" (who we can agree = gunslinger).
Favre's retired and I don't care about making excuses for the guy at this point. The only reason I posted was in response to your implication (in my opinion) that Favre was a tree stump. If I somehow managed to misinterpret you, my bad.
I don't think Favre was stupid. I don't think he was particularly bright by educational standards, either. He was football smart enough. He understood the game very well. His dad was a coach.
I question his overall intelligence in the grand scheme of things. The moonball in Philly and the forced out that forced us out of the NFC Championship last years are prime examples. I don't think Aaron Rodgers is going to be trying to do such things. As nerdmann pointed out he will play the offense the way it's set up to work. He will not play street ball and do his own thing. I'm sure every once in awhile he will tuck and run it when maybe he should just throw it out of bounds. It will be nice to see a first down by QB legs and also to see a ball flung out of bounds instead of into triple coverage.
That is all I'm trying to say.
I've answered your questions but you never seem to answer mine. Is a person with a gunslinger mentality smart in your mind? If you're down by 6 with time running down then it's great you think that way. It is not so great when you're acting like you're down by 6 and time is running out ALL THE TIME.
I watched Rodgers on NFL Network today in an interview with Eisen and Baldinger. He came across great. If you get a chance it's running at 40 after the hour until the new Total Access comes on this evening.
The biggest thing I took from him was his answer to the question about what he wanted fans to know about him that we may not know. He said he's..."laid back". Interesting. He said he will not get too high when he's praised because QB's get too much credit when it goes well, nor will he get too low when he's criticized because the QB takes too much blame. He said he understands the gig. I think he does and we'll see a consistent level headed guy who after he throws a pick will not press to make up for it leading to more mistakes. That is encouraging.
He strikes me as a guy who is just itching to prove to all the doubters that he can carry this team on his back should he need to and knows that he will.
now you are trying to paint it that we don't hope/anticpate success for Rodgers?
that's "stupid"
that's "stupid"
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
now you are trying to paint it that we don't hope/anticpate success for Rodgers?
that's "stupid"
Where on earth did you ever get that from? Very wrong assessment of what I've written. It is Rodgers own contention that many expect him to fail "outside his own locker room". He knows he is following a fan and league favorite. He wants to prove all the people who will not give him a chance because he's not Brett Favre that he's a pretty good QB in his own right.
Getting closer to indignation
If Favre was a gunslinger all the time, as you say, then how would the overall body of work be of such high quality? How on earth did he win so many games, did the Packers have all those division titles, get to two Super Bowls, etc.? Was it the Hall of Fame talent around him? The impenetrable defense that covered for his mistakes? It's tough to answer your questions that don't make sense. "Is it a good thing to have a gunslinger mentality all the time"? No. Did he? How is that possible?
Let's cut to it: You (and nerdmann) are excited about Rodgers, because in your view he's not going to make the dumb mistakes that Favre did in Philly and against the Giants. Is that fair? I think that in doing so you're sorely underestimating being a successful quarterback in the NFL. Is it really all about making occasional dumb mistakes or not making them? Merely by not making them, to read nerdmann's post, that's all Rodgers will have to do to be -- his words -- BETTER than Favre. Well, wow. What can I say to that? To simply dismiss a Hall of Fame quarterback as easily replaced because all we need is a guy who plays within the system and is intelligent enough not to make dumb mistakes or have a gunslinger mentality....I think it's crazy.
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
Let's cut to it: You (and nerdmann) are excited about Rodgers, because in your view he's not going to make the dumb mistakes that Favre did in Philly and against the Giants. Is that fair? I think that in doing so you're sorely underestimating being a successful quarterback in the NFL. Is it really all about making occasional dumb mistakes or not making them? Merely by not making them, to read nerdmann's post, that's all Rodgers will have to do to be -- his words -- BETTER than Favre. Well, wow. What can I say to that? To simply dismiss a Hall of Fame quarterback as easily replaced because all we need is a guy who plays within the system and is intelligent enough not to make dumb mistakes or have a gunslinger mentality....I think it's crazy.
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Where on earth did you ever get that from?
Get "what" from? I wrote it in quotes.
Anywho, I'll go with what Max said. He said it better than me and he appears to have football "knowledge."
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
I don't think Favre was stupid. I don't think he was particularly bright by educational standards, either. He was football smart enough. He understood the game very well. His dad was a coach.
Favre was in the top 3% of NFL QB's that can read a pre-snap defense. If you want to see Favre read a defense take a look at the end of regulation of the Denver game. Favre is on the sidelines talking about burning Dre' Bly if they get a specific look. They got it and Favre/Jennings smoked Dre' Bly. Favre went over and discussed it with MM. MM agreed. That was all Favre recognition. You aren't able to do that if you're stupid. I guarantee Duante Culpepper wouldn't have come up with that.
My biggest argument for Favre being incredible is this....
Where was the HOF talent around him?? Besides Reggie White, WHO is in the HOF? A couple guys were close (Butler) but that's it!!
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/graphic.asp?graphic=...ews/sep07/play30.jpg
This play and graphic hint at some of the decisions and thought processes that occur before and during a single play in the NFL
It takes a few years to learn all of this, so I would expect that Rodgers will make mistakes too, but probably different ones than Favre.
This play and graphic hint at some of the decisions and thought processes that occur before and during a single play in the NFL
It takes a few years to learn all of this, so I would expect that Rodgers will make mistakes too, but probably different ones than Favre.
quote:Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Anywho, I'll go with what Max said. He said it better than me and he appears to have football "knowledge."
Max is certainly no gunslinger!
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
I don't think Favre was stupid. I don't think he was particularly bright by educational standards, either. He was football smart enough. He understood the game very well. His dad was a coach.
Favre was in the top 3% of NFL QB's that can read a pre-snap defense. If you want to see Favre read a defense take a look at the end of regulation of the Denver game. Favre is on the sidelines talking about burning Dre' Bly if they get a specific look. They got it and Favre/Jennings smoked Dre' Bly. Favre went over and discussed it with MM. MM agreed. That was all Favre recognition. You aren't able to do that if you're stupid. I guarantee Duante Culpepper wouldn't have come up with that.
My biggest argument for Favre being incredible is this....
Where was the HOF talent around him?? Besides Reggie White, WHO is in the HOF? A couple guys were close (Butler) but that's it!!
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
It's tough to pull out a single play and use that as validation of a point. For every play in Denver, there was the moonball in Philly. The argument can go converse just as easily as the way you're stating it. If he was so smart, then why did he heave the moonball in Philly and force an out to Driver when Ryan Grant was wide open? It's about consistency. The WCO is set up for rhythm and timing passes. If you do it right you will be successful. Favre did it right quite a bit especially under the tyrant Holmgren. He also made his own play several times a game. It's the NBA equivalent of being able to create your own shot. Rodgers will rely more on the structure of the offense than his own natural ability. Favre had more of that than Rodgers. I think overall we'll get better performance if Rodgers has the ability I think he does. He was a Tedford system guy at Cal. Now, he is a WCO system guy. He's bright and has done it on a high level in college. Plus, he played at a very high level in difficult circumstances in Big D even though they have a miserable Pass D.
Rodgers appears to have no Hall of Famers around him either. There's not even a Reggie White. I'm betting we have a tremendous year next season. Ducking.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
Rice and Lott.
OK, an aging Fred Dean as well.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
That pretty much sums it up. Good job, Max.
quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:quote:Originally posted by Max:
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
That pretty much sums it up. Good job, Max.
A lot of folks are going to be disappointed.
quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:quote:Originally posted by Max:
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
That pretty much sums it up. Good job, Max.
Agreed. AND...If Rodgers hadn't been touted as a potential #1 overall pick in the '05 draft I wouldn't expect greatness. He was so therefore I expect it. He was drafted higher than Favre. There should be expectations for him. We saw our offense work well when throws were not forced. I think Rodgers will make less mistakes. Will he make more plays? We'll see.
Wow. Are you seriously saying that Brett's bad plays equaled his good ones? ("For every play in Denver, there was the moonball in Philly") How did this guy make the roster?
As Max so aptly queried in his own stylistic way: What the heck are you saying? More importantly, why the heck am I still listening?
As Max so aptly queried in his own stylistic way: What the heck are you saying? More importantly, why the heck am I still listening?
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Agreed. AND...If Rodgers hadn't been touted as a potential #1 overall pick in the '05 draft I wouldn't expect greatness.
Ooh, the Jamal Reynolds argument.
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Boris:
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
Rice and Lott.
OK, an aging Fred Dean as well.
Other players who aren't in the HOF but are being considered & I'd say VERY close.
Randy Cross
Harris Barton
Charles Haley
Michael Carter
Brent Jones
Roger Craig
Dwight Clark
Yeah, no question some HOF or near HOF talent there. Favre never got to play with players of that caliber for any length of time due to injury or FA etc.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Boris:
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
Rice and Lott.
OK, an aging Fred Dean as well.
Other players who aren't in the HOF but are being considered & I'd say VERY close.
Randy Cross
Harris Barton
Charles Haley
Michael Carter
Brent Jones
Roger Craig
Dwight Clark
Yeah, no question some HOF or near HOF talent there. Favre never got to play with players of that caliber for any length of time due to injury or FA etc.
Charles Haley.
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Agreed. AND...If Rodgers hadn't been touted as a potential #1 overall pick in the '05 draft I wouldn't expect greatness.
Ooh, the Jamal Reynolds argument.
Jamal Reynolds was not ever thought of as a potential 1st overall. Ever.
Rodgers obviously has tools and tallant. You aren't bandied about as the top overall pick if you don't.
If we had Gus Frerotte, or Tarvaris Jackson taking over I would expect disaster. If we had Garcia I would think we'd be pretty good. The WCO has produced some pretty good QB's. Hasselbeck, Young, Montana, Favre, ... MM apparently can develop QB's. As can Clements. Holmgren could, too. I'm sure much of a person's success is tied to coaching especially at the QB position.
Yes... I do think he made as many "moonball" plays as he did "Denver" plays. He had 288 interceptions + 147 fumbles= 435 He had 442 TD passes. Before I get hammered, he only lost 64 of those fumbles. Still, 435 bad plays to 442 good ones seems pretty even to me. Plus, as Tony Dungy used to say...He'll give you 4-5 plays a game to make turnovers off of. There were many ints that were dropped by dbacks due to the velocity for which he got on the ball.
His career completion rate was 61.4. That means he had a 38.6 incompletion ratio.
Now, focusing on what I said... The Denver play was a "wow" play. The play in Philly was an "oh no" play. I think throughout his career those types of plays balanced out.
Can't you guys take it to the Brett Favre forum? Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Boris:
Montana had a boatload of HOF talent around him.
Rice and Lott.
OK, an aging Fred Dean as well.
Other players who aren't in the HOF but are being considered & I'd say VERY close.
Randy Cross
Harris Barton
Charles Haley
Michael Carter
Brent Jones
Roger Craig
Dwight Clark
Yeah, no question some HOF or near HOF talent there. Favre never got to play with players of that caliber for any length of time due to injury or FA etc.
Anytime you are part of a dynasty you're going to have players thought of highly. Ken Ruettgers was far better than Harris Barton or Randy Cross as far as Olinemen go. The only one who was truly outstanding on that list is Haley. I liked Keena Turner.
quote:Still, 435 bad plays to 442 good ones seems pretty even to me.
So the only good plays he made were the TD plays? What about all of the first down throws that put him in scoring range? I would have to say his "good" plays were significantly higher than 442.
quote:Originally posted by rastapackermon:
As Max so aptly queried in his own stylistic way: What the heck are you saying? More importantly, why the heck am I still listening?
It's a beautiful thing...
quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:quote:Still, 435 bad plays to 442 good ones seems pretty even to me.
So the only good plays he made were the TD plays? What about all of the first down throws that put him in scoring range? I would have to say his "good" plays were significantly higher than 442.
Understatement of the year.
quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:quote:Still, 435 bad plays to 442 good ones seems pretty even to me.
So the only good plays he made were the TD plays? What about all of the first down throws that put him in scoring range? I would have to say his "good" plays were significantly higher than 442.
I'm shaking my head (indignation). What aren't you understanding, here? Yes, yes, yes, he had more than 442 "good" plays in his career...MANY, MANY more. He also had MANY, MANY more bad plays that don't show up as INT's or fumbles. The ratio of complete to incomplete is a shade better than 60/40.
You're shaking your head?
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:
You're shaking your head?
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
Yip cabbage.
I saw the AR interview on NFL network...I really like this kid and he seems to be handling the 'replacing a legend' process quite well and much better than everyone else...including ourselves. I hope he does well and becomes the talk of the NFL for the '08' season. I'll be rooting for him.
quote:Originally posted by Max:quote:Originally posted by nerdmann:
I think that a consistent performer will always be more successful than a "home run" hitter. Favre took alot of chances and made alot of plays, but also made horrendous gaffes. I think Rodgers will play more "within the system," and will have more success.
Out of curiosity, where do you put Favre among quarterbacks in NFL history. 5th? 10th? 15th? Wherever it is, that's how many "consistent performers" there have been in the entire history of the league who have been better and more successful than Favre. And Rodgers is going to be one of them, a determination you can make based on his one-half a game of NFL action? Glad you don't have unrealistic expectations or anything.quote:Originally posted by nerdmann:
But Rodgers' ability to perform calmly under pressure is going to be a huge breath of fresh air for Packers fans.
Packers fans have seen one losing season in the last 16 years. One Super Bowl win. Two conference championships. Numerous division titles. Winning season after winning season, more than any other team over the same period.
And Packers fans, compared to any other NFL team's fans, need a "huge breath of fresh air"? Yeah, it'll be great to put all that misery and frustration behind us.
1: I place Favre BEHIND Bart Starr, if that's what you mean. Montana too. I think Favre's durability is one of the big reasons for his legendary status.
2: I'm not saying Rodgers will become a top 10 all time QB. He will be very good, but I'm not sure how long he will play. There are many variables. I base this assessment on his performance generally since OTAs last year. "The light went on" for him. MM told him a bunch of specific things to do to get with his program before that offseason. He did them.
3: Rodgers has played at a high level before, and he is under the tutelage of MM. He is surrounded by weapons. Is it "unrealistic" to think that he will be successful? I don't think so.
4: Rodgers will be a breath of fresh air. He will throw to the guy who is OPEN. He will not get bored with moving the chains and just throw balls deep downfield. He will not get an adrenaline rush and do stupid things. He won't have to get a forearm smash to the face in order to settle down and play within the system. He won't panic and start throwing deep on every play, like Favre did in the Dallas game.
5: Like I said, I will take fewer big plays if fewer mistakes come along with them. That's a formula for winning, esp in an offense that benefits from controlling time of possession.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
If Favre was a gunslinger all the time, as you say, then how would the overall body of work be of such high quality? How on earth did he win so many games, did the Packers have all those division titles, get to two Super Bowls, etc.? Was it the Hall of Fame talent around him? The impenetrable defense that covered for his mistakes? It's tough to answer your questions that don't make sense. "Is it a good thing to have a gunslinger mentality all the time"? No. Did he? How is that possible?
Let's cut to it: You (and nerdmann) are excited about Rodgers, because in your view he's not going to make the dumb mistakes that Favre did in Philly and against the Giants. Is that fair? I think that in doing so you're sorely underestimating being a successful quarterback in the NFL. Is it really all about making occasional dumb mistakes or not making them? Merely by not making them, to read nerdmann's post, that's all Rodgers will have to do to be -- his words -- BETTER than Favre. Well, wow. What can I say to that? To simply dismiss a Hall of Fame quarterback as easily replaced because all we need is a guy who plays within the system and is intelligent enough not to make dumb mistakes or have a gunslinger mentality....I think it's crazy.
I'm not going to be rooting against Rodgers. I hope he's great. What bugs me is this apparent idea that it's going to be so easy for him -- all he has to do is listen to McCarthy and not make any dumb mistakes, and it's all going to be sunshine and lollipops. It's not just an insult to Favre, it's an insult to the difficulty of 1) playing quarterback in the NFL, 2) being good at it, and 3) being great at it. A comparatively select few have ever done it. I think it's rare, difficult, and shouldn't be dismissed as easily as some appear willing to do.
1: No, it's not "just" about not making mistakes. It's also about performing at a high level. Which Rodgers can do. Will it be "easy" to replace Favre? Of course not. Can Rodgers do things that are not easy? Apparently you do not think so.
2: As I stated earlier, to me it's not about "intelligence" per se. It's about the adrenaline. Favre was addicted to the rush. (And in the end, he couldn't hack it in the cold.)
quote:Rodgers has played at a high level before, and he is under the tutelage of MM. He is surrounded by weapons. Is it "unrealistic" to think that he will be successful? I don't think so.
I did not say it was unrealistic to think Rodgers will be successful. I said it's unrealistic to think the guy's going to step into the lineup as a virtual rookie and be "better than Favre." He has played at a high level in exactly half of a regular season NFL game. Yes, I do think it's unrealistic to look at that and think he will be better than Favre. Or Majkowski. Or any number of great, very good, or good quarterbacks.
quote:Originally posted by nerdmann:
I base this assessment on his performance generally since OTAs last year. "The light went on" for him. MM told him a bunch of specific things to do to get with his program before that offseason. He did them.
"His performance generally"? Considering the limited evidence, it's not exactly hard to be specific. His performance in half a game against Dallas was great. Beyond that I guess we're talking about his performance in the preseason games. Which to me doesn't mean much.
This idea that Favre could be as successful as he was for as long as he was by incessantly doing all the things you accuse him of suggests it's nothing short of miraculous that we had any success at all over the past 16 years. I guess he was one lucky guy.
I think it's the "breath of fresh air comment" that really gets me. Sounds like you don't have the faintest clue how good we as Packers fans, compared to other NFL fans in the history of the league, have had it. Seriously, I hope Rodgers is half of what you expect him to be and you never have to find out.
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Agreed. AND...If Rodgers hadn't been touted as a potential #1 overall pick in the '05 draft I wouldn't expect greatness.
Ooh, the Jamal Reynolds argument.
Jamal Reynolds was not ever thought of as a potential 1st overall. Ever.
Wanna bet? How much money, big shot?
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
Agreed. AND...If Rodgers hadn't been touted as a potential #1 overall pick in the '05 draft I wouldn't expect greatness.
Ooh, the Jamal Reynolds argument.
Jamal Reynolds was not ever thought of as a potential 1st overall. Ever.
Wanna bet? How much money, big shot?
As much as you've got. I worked the draft in media that year. I talked to Jamal Reynolds and when I was done prayed we wouldn't take him.
I lobbed the softball and you smacked it. I was going to put a coffee reference in there but was curious to see how quickly one would appear.
No...Jamal Reynolds struck me like the look on Sleepy Sam Perkins face. That is honestly how I equated it at the time. He came across as lazy/sleepy to me like he really couldn't care less about football or where he was drafted. Not a good trait in a DE that is supposed to get the QB. His play lived up to my conversation with him. I was horrified when we took him due to that and the fact he didn't drink coffee.
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
As much as you've got. I worked the draft in media that year. I talked to Jamal Reynolds and when I was done prayed we wouldn't take him.
Why? He didn't appreciate the coffee you served him?
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:
You're shaking your head?
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
Yip cabbage.
Ummmmm CoP.....Guess what. MsPacman has a tremendous amount of credibility around here, so if you don't want to get on my bad side, I'd relax if I were you.
She knows more about football than you've forgotten, that I assure you.
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
As much as you've got. I worked the draft in media that year. I talked to Jamal Reynolds and when I was done prayed we wouldn't take him.
How does Kiper take his coffee?
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:
You're shaking your head?
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
Yip cabbage.
Ummmmm CoP.....Guess what. MsPacman has a tremendous amount of credibility around here, so if you don't want to get on my bad side, I'd relax if I were you.
She knows more about football than you've forgotten, that I assure you.
How is saying "Yip Cabbage" offensive? I thought I was on your bad side already. It's pretty hard for you to say that not knowing what I know about football. I guess my posts here relegate me to idiot status because I don't, well, you already know.
If she's credible to you and others how would I know? And...better yet...why would I care? Seriously? Someone with credibility can be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:quote:Originally posted by MsPacman:
You're shaking your head?
Those were rather rhetorical questions and I didn't really need you to answer them for me. I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what's being discussed here.
Good Goobly Goo!
Yip cabbage.
Ummmmm CoP.....Guess what. MsPacman has a tremendous amount of credibility around here, so if you don't want to get on my bad side, I'd relax if I were you.
She knows more about football than you've forgotten, that I assure you.
Thanks, Boris, but I don't really mind if COP wants to call me a moron. I'll consider it an honor at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Change of Possession:
How is saying "Yip Cabbage" offensive? I thought I was on your bad side already. It's pretty hard for you to say that not knowing what I know about football. I guess my posts here relegate me to idiot status because I don't, well, you already know.
If she's credible to you and others how would I know? And...better yet...why would I care? Seriously? Someone with credibility can be wrong.
That's rather indignant.