Omerta
-
Content Count
4,506 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
98
Posts posted by Omerta
-
-
-
If this were a poker game, then Vilma would have just called an all-in from Goodell with a pair of twos. There's a small chance Goodell was bluffing, but more than likely when the cards are thrown down he'll have thrown away everything.
Honestly, watching this ongoing charade by the Saints and their fans has destroyed what little respect I had for them before this all came out. They broke the rules, they lied about it, they broke them again, and now that they got caught we're supposed to believe that the SAINTS are the victims here?
I can understand the fans defending their team. The Saints are the glue that holds that city together. However, when defending your team just becomes making excuses and sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" whenever someone brings up the fact that you've already lost, given a confession, and been convicted, it's time to re-evaluate your position.
I see Saints fans who instead of accepting the cold truth have decided to try and convince us they're the victims of some sort of "conspiracy" in the NFL to destroy the Saints. That Roger Goodell is unfairly targetting them to send a message. This is even though your team has already ADMITTED to doing what they were accused of doing.
That is, until the punishments were actually levvied. Now suddenly "The NFL is being unfair to us! We have to fight even though we already confessed to doing what they said we did!" Now we're supposed to feel bad for the Saints? We're supposed to buy this story that the NFL made this all up to destroy you? Yeah, I think the ones making things up are the Saints.
I have no sympathy for the Saints at this point, and not because they were a team I disliked in the first place. If this had been my Seahawks in your place I would be just as angry and disappointed, and I CERTAILY wouldn't be making such dumb excuses for them. I'd demand ANSWERS from my team. I'd want heads to ROLL.
This needs to stop. There is no "conspiracy" against the Saints. You are NOT the victims here, no matter how badly you want us to believe you are. The true victims are the players whose careers you tried to end. As for Vilma? Let him fight. In the end, he'll get what he deserves.
If all of this is true why does this bother you ? If you are correct then Roger Goodell is going to take Vilma to the cleaners and it is going to empirically prove that the saints were in the wrong and when the evidence is released and it turns out that Goodell was correct than Vilma will not have a leg to stand on.
Now for one second lets just assume the opposite. What if Vilma knows he did not and he wants it called into question about half the crooked shit that happens in this league because of that stupid fucktard Goodell.
I personally think this is all in the middle because Goodell has something or else he is just plain fucking stupid. Either that or he thought nobody would question any of his authority for the fear of the repercussions of the all powerful douche bag. So I think he will get caught with SOMETHING that makes him look like the pompous, long winded, douche bagged fuckwad he really is.
Also Vilma would not have done this if he knew he was going to lose on all counts so I think that he has something up his sleeve. There is no way he cuts his own throat without gaining something. If he can even discredit GODell a little bit than the backlash will be ten times worse than what it will be if Vilma is proved on all counts.
-
Mike Smith - Head coaches should ALWAYS be on Americas Game.
Matt Ryan
Sean Weatherspoon/John Abraham - Either one of the two.
Not if you are the Ravens.
-
Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, and Anquan Boldin.
-
Have you ever carried a child to term? Maybe changed her mind for more than just a money reason. Is it really that inconceivable? I think the fact that you all are sitting here ripping the court decision and this woman when you all seem to have little to no actual facts regarding the case.
By all means tell us how much of the facts you know. All those you accuse of judging might have actually read something about it.
-
Have you ever carried a child to term? Maybe changed her mind for more than just a money reason. Is it really that inconceivable? I think the fact that you all are sitting here ripping the court decision and this woman when you all seem to have little to no actual facts regarding the case.
-
It is pretty shitty that he is an incompetent doctor who can not only fuck up the whole process but turn around and either not catch it or not lie about it.
that said the lady was obviously not able to take care of a child or did not need one so she should not be treating abortion as a form of birth control for a number of reasons but if for nothing else that rubbers are way cheaper.
So that being said he should handle the medical costs of the pregnancy and his botched procedure. After that the doctor did not fuck for those kids so I am not sure he should be the one who should have to pay for the consequences of two other peoples actions that had nothing to do with him.
Another question is where is the dad in all of this ? Does he not hold any of the burden of the responsibility ? how about the him and the doctor split the costs at the most EXTREME judgement on top of the medical bills.
it is also kind of sad how she says well I would have aborted until it was too late. it is a little fucked up that only after she gets some publicity and know her kid will Google her one day and find the article of where he is the life that should have never been.
But hey its OK she will not have to work for the next quarter century of her life..... Is this one justice system that might be more fucked up than our own>
-
Over the past 9 years, only 3 teams have represented the AFC in the Superbowl: Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and New England.
Which team will break this streak?
I am going with the Texans. They are a young team that is really on the rise and if they could have stayed healthy last year, I think a lot of people would have had them representing the AFC in the Superbowl.
I think the Ravens are another possibility, but they need to do it quick because that defense isn't going to last too much longer.
Again the defense is not old. The Texans and the Ravens are both logical choices for it aside from the others you mentioned.
Also I know they perennially choke but if the Chargers can get hot a little earlier they could be up there.
-
Ages of Empires II: The Age of Kings
-
I dont know their have beens things that will help hin on the offense and things that could hurt him.
Tolbert being gone could really put some lead in his pencil as far as the TD vulture and carries go.
However do we thing Malcolm Floyd can put up VJ -like numbers and then whoever their number two receiver is (Meachem or Brown) can replicate the production of Malcolm Floyd as the number two receiver. If so then yeah he can.. If not he may be looking at more stacked boxes.
I would say it is definitely plausible though.
-
This is some serious shit. Why is it the NFL is trying to expand outward. A corporation that pulls in billions in revenues a year should stick with the one that brought them to the dance.
-
Yeah, but when has BJGE been anything more than a back in a committee? I imagine Jay Gruden is going to have a multi back system, no one back could really be called the starter, much like New England and New Orleans.
In 2010 when he was a 1000 yard rusher with a 4.4 YPC average. He was in an extremely pass heavy offense his entire career and has NEVER fumbled the football.
The Bengals might have just made one of the best FA pickups this year.
-
For all the Rex Haters, look at him on the field. Take his antics on the camera out of the equation for a moment.
This guy has two things going for him.
First: A good offensive line with decent to good running backs depending on the game, an underrated FB, and a tried and true philosophy of running and then play action.
Second: Love him or hate him he can get the most out of the defense and the personnel he has. He has done it for years and fielding top 10 defenses for a long time.
I am not saying he is the greatest ever, but his coaching gets a bum rap because of his off the field shit.
-
uh oh....he forgot his other shirt at the cleaners.
-
^^^ What both said. Depending on how luck turns out and if he really is the next peyton I will say him next year just for the age factor and it would be nice for the Ravens to finally have one QB we could say would be TRULY elite and not just self proclaimed.
honorable mention:
Jake Long
Joe Thomas
-
Cassel
knight
-
Ed Reed will be 34 this season, Terrell Suggs is going to be 30, Ray Lewis is 37. Lardarius Webb and Haloti Ngata are the only two other star players the Ravens have on defense. Lewis and Reed are near retirement, you can't deny that.
As for the record, thanks for proving my point for me. I never said anything about the rest of the AFC North's schedules; I said that the Ravens had a cake schedule and they did. 12-4 out of that schedule is what should have been expected. If they were truly this powerhouse Super Bowl team like most claim, they'd have lost to better teams rather than playing to the level of their opponents all season and would have bumped that up a couple notches.
The AFC was weak last year. The Patriots and Ravens were extremely overrated and posting their weak strength of schedule lends credence to my argument.
I took all that into account. as far as how old will they be when the season starts.
As for the cake schedules it was not really to dispute your claim of a cake schedule because it indeed was. I twas to show that scheduling really wanst something that should be a knock because almost every year you know eight games and then you know what teams you will play based off of divisions so it is not like you can really point to someones schedule and say that well they should have been this or that because in the end you will never know until the game unfolds.
As to the Ravens you are again correct in the ascertainment that they played up and down to their competition so that being said had the schedule been different they may have ended up with the same record due to that fact. Again we will never know however this year they the AFCN has a very tough schedule so we are going to see.
And they were SB contenders it was a dumb ass catch away with a perfectly thrown ball away from winning and an idiot kicker from tying.
And do not sit here and point fingers as if the steelers were not overrated. Every year it is the same shit. I think last year the slogan was stairway to seven and every analyst gave the ravens no shot of winning the division just like every year for the last decade. I really ahve no problem with it though because we are still in the playoffs every year. A?nd if you are an honest pittsburgh fan you can not lie and say you know you are going to beat the Ravens every time because just about every game in recent memory has been one score more often than not coming down to a field goal.
Again this was not meant to disprove an argument one way or the other, more or less to point out division rivals rarely have schedules that are stark contrasts to each other. So if you say the person who wins the division has a cake as schedule then your team generally does not have it much tougher.
However take it as a victory if you like but their was no argument intended just making sure that from here on nobody makes some irrational argument and everybody has a full deck.
Side note though: WE lost to the AFC champs you lost to probably the second shittiest QB in the league so lets not go there.
-
First and foremost the recent schedule thing has cam up about the Ravens in particular.
2011 Strength of Schedule goes as follows for the AFCN among the rest of the NFL:
Cleveland: 19th
Cincinnati: 27th
Pittsburgh: 27th
Baltimore: 31st
So that said nobody in the AFCN had a hard one and Pittsburgh and Cincy only had slightly tougher schedules definitely not tough enough for people to give an edge one way or the other. The Browns had by far the hardest and it reflected in the record.
Second lets get past this Age thing because it is complete horse shit.
Average Age for defensive starters:
Pittseburgh:30.2
Cincinatti: 26.2
Baltimore: 26.9
Cleveland: 27
Average age of Offensive starters:
Piitsburgh: 24.9
Cincinatti: 25.4
Baltimore: 27.2
Cleveland: 24.8
So this same old tired ass talk of Blatimore is getting old is indeed getting old. And once Ray and Ed are gone look for that average age to be right around 24.5. And truth be told no team in the AFCN is getting all that old. Although Pitt is the leader but not by a wide margin.
-
So first you eat some media headlines without reading/listening to the actual quotes and then you regurgitate the bullshit with a line of your own. Kudos. Next you'll be telling me how Ben is a baby who keeps bitching about the new offense despite the fact that all he's said is that "it's a lot of work", "sometimes frustrating", but "that's what makes it fun".
First of all, who criticized them for being pass happy? The team is built for the pass and that is glaringly obvious to anyone with some semblance of NFL knowledge when looking at the Steelers' roster. Arians was criticized for being a shitty play caller who tried forcing the Steelers to fit his idea of what an NFL offense should be. He was maligned for often making quotes like, "I don't have a fullback in my offense." Their ratio of run/pass was 40.75%/59.25%, hardly out of the norm in today's NFL. The problem with Arians was not the fact that he loved the pass. The problem with him was his stubbornness, inability to get the most out of his players, being predictable, and running pass plays with extremely long routes that got Ben killed.
Second, Tomlin never said anything about the Steelers running more. Rooney mentioned that he wanted the Steelers to run more efficiently, but not more. Not one person mentioned this "smashmouth" bullshit that the media has been brewing up to reel people like you in.
Finally, Todd Haley, though he is a humongous douche, is a great offensive mind. Here's a small transcript of one of his first interviews as the Steelers' OC:
Trouble brewing indeed.
That was quite the 10,000th post.
-
1
-
-
I could go into more details later, but I voted yes. However, another poll option should be "it depends on the child." I think you could try spanking a few times and see how the kid reacts to it. If there's a severe negative reaction then spanking is probably not good for that child. I was spanked when I was younger and I turned out just fine, but some other kids might not. It's all about parental discretion.
I added the question. I at first did not because I thought many people would just go that route instead of answering it as a general principle. I know some parents who are not opposed to it but just never needed to. I wanted to get a concise view of where people stood.
As far as the sever negative reactions, what were you talking about ? I dont know many kids who enjoy it but I am assuming you have a more sever consequence in mind perhaps estrangement or irreparably damaging them or something of that nature.
And if you have time constraints that cool but when you get the chance please elaborate, or where you testing the waters on it ? Just so I can see other points of view even if they are the same they may bring a different perspective to a question people are usually pretty set in stone about.
-
So last night me and the old lady are at some super swanky restaurant because I am trying to convince her into letting me by a 1969 Camaro SS/RS and putting off the retirement for a couple of year with the understanding I would do most of the maintenance myself. So anyway to the point, we are sitting there and actually enjoying ourselves and talking about all the random shit that popped into our head, and this kid is running in between tables like he has lost his rabbit ass mind. he yelling and his parents are just sitting their watching him admiring what a precocious child they have. Then the kids starts yelling and throws a dinner roll across the restaurant and hit a guy sitting at the table next to me. I overhear him say, "my parents would have whooped my ass as a kid...thanks tree huggers." Before I noticed it I said, " No shit right." He laughed and I bought the fellow a beer for his outstanding self control.
Anyway me and my wife were talking it over and was wondering what is the deal with spanking your kids. I understand there is a fine line between a good ass whoopini and abuse and in todays society they are interchangeable. I have always been a muscular cat so at about the age of 16 it was not the belt that did the trick anymore it was my old man taking me behind the old proverbial woodshed and kicking my ass. It was nothing super serious like kicking me when I was down but enough to where I got his point.
I am not saying all kids need that but I was a hard headed little prick and it honestly taught me a few things and I think had served me well in my military career because of the personal responsibility factor. Now there are psychologists on the TV all the time saying it mentally scars kids and so on and so on, but I guess I am the exception because I hold no ill will and am far from scarred and if he hadn't have whooped my ass and I had ever won one I might be able to admit I appreciate it.
So the question folks is, do you think it is right or wrong? I would like to give some differing viewpoints to try and understand another side. Is it something I am missing. Was my Dad to old school ? Am I just fucked in the head ? Or is it in fact true that from time to time a kid just needs an ass whoopin ?
Now if you do people can call SRS, you can be arrested, you can have your kids taken, I mean it is just a lot of the government trying to raise your kids now.
My mom's saying was, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out." I threatened to call the cops once and she said it will give me a good 20 minutes to whoop your ass until they get here and believe I will make the jail time worth it. That quickly quelled my cleverly thought out rebellion.
-
To be honest who gives a shit. I am not saying I am a gay rights activist or what have you but, in the end gay people really do not effect how I live my life in any way other than taking up time the news could be using on the latest sports gold digger.
I honestly would not care if they get married because most of them are more than likable people who hold down regular jobs like anybody else, most pay taxes which is something that a lot if illegal immigrants do not ( a topic that no one likes touching either).
If my only complaint about someone is that they are gay than in the grand scheme of things I can let that go under a few provisos. First please no PDA the predominantly heterosexual population by and large do not want to see that shit, it is irritating even when straight people do it. Second quit with the flamboyant I am here and I am queer lifestyle. We get it. Your gay. Nobody really cares. I mean I am not saying that they can not show affection towards each other but I was scarred form when I went to cali to check out the surfing and two dudes were making out, I did not say anything nor do I think I ever would but that shit was fucking gross. That being said though I hate seeing straight people do that shit too, take him/her to the car and do that shit or public bathrooms (yeah I am classy like that) like normal people.
Also with that out of the way this government has become entirely too heavy handed in most of the policies they levy in terms of the nation as a whole. What is that phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I could have swore that applied to everyone and we did not get to judge who that applied to as it is written.
A viewpoint I have recently adopted is this is not dissimilar to the legalization of the Mary Jane. Both are "wrong" in some manner or another ( coincidentally religious zealots are not really a fan of this either but believe in a talking burning bush...go figure) The government both knows they are out their and gaining popularity by the day and both are still illegal. That said both are drawing heavy support and are trying to get legislation passed saying it is OK to do the exact same thing that is happening anyway.
I am all for gay marriage, hey if you want to be gay knock yourself out I really could care less. Would I ever partake....NO! That being said I dont smoke pot either but I know plenty of people that do who are just a good of person as I am if not better. This is 2012 this rodeo is supposed to be ending soon anyway, fuck it just give it to them for fuck sake.
-
2
-
-
Michael McKean
Squiggy
-
You obviously either didn't read the article or you have horrendous reading comprehension...
The entire premise of the article was to debunk the thought that the best defenses ever are completely reliant on their ending statistics (the ones I bolded in your post). Ignorant/shortsighted people are the ones that look at those statistics and completely disregard strength of schedule, strength of offenses faced, and league-wide offensive trends.
The Ravens played a cakewalk of a schedule that included 0 top 5 and only 2 top 10 offenses. That is a fact. They also were playing in a down period for offenses, so even the best offenses were putting up less yards and points. The league changes and goes through periods of flux.
I don't think anyone would sit here and tell you that Matthew Stafford is better than Johnny Unitas because Stafford threw for 5,038 yards and 41 TDs last year and Unitas's career bests being 3,481 and 32 respectively. In the same way, you can't look at the 2000 Ravens' defense and say that their low numbers are the best ever because, in reality, those numbers were much closer to average for their time period than the numbers in '85, '91, or '08.
If the new standard for an NFL offense in 2012 is 800 yards per game with 1,000 yards being exceptional, wouldn't you say that a team that is allowing 400 yards per game on defense is an amazing defense? Would you still say that Baltimore allowing 248 yards per game in 2000 when the average was 319.43 is the best defense ever simply because 248 is less than 400? The hypothetical 2012 defense allowed 50% of what the league-wide average was while the Ravens allowed 77.63% of the league average.
The average YPG in 2000 was 319.43. The Ravens allowed 248 against a schedule of weak offenses in a historically weaker offensive time period or 77.63% of the average. The average in 2008 was 327.24 and the Steelers allowed only 237 or 72.42% of what the league average was. In yards, the 2008 Steelers have the 2000 Ravens beat.
I could sit here and re-explain that article all day to prove you wrong, but I fear that it would be wasted because you either wouldn't understand it, chalk it up to "bias" despite the fact that you're a Ravens fan debating for the 2000 Ravens, or completely ignore the analysis like you've done as of late.
You want to talk about me being biased huh ?
Lets look at this a moment you send me to an article at a website called "behind the steel curtain" to read an article written by a steelers fan that is trying to disprove the validity of the Ravens defense by his own admission in the first paragraph because a Ravens fan was "arguing" with him about the best defense ever.
So he comes up with his own mathematical formula that supports a conclusion he wants in the beginning. He does not have them weighted for how they performed against the top offenses they did face, he did not come up with a satisfactory way of explaining how the schedule effects the numbers or any adjusted scale of what they should be. Did not take into account that in the 2000's that was when a RB was the centerpiece of an offense more often then a QB which is not conducive to high numbers.
In the article he says IMO that is why you have to rule out the 2000 Ravens, so after he admits it is his own opinion that he is going by he rules out that defense. That entire article is his opinion and his alone and as previously stated by the websites own name admission he is a steeler's fan. I can find a link to a Raven website where staff writers have said the 2000 Ravens was the greatest defense of all time. Would you take this link from me and accept it as fact? Of course you would not.
So this guy who has never played or done anything spectacular to make him any sort of an expert in football or mathematics makes up this article and I am supposed to accept it as truth or my reading comprehension is terrible? That makes no sense. Explain to me how that every me this subject comes up the defense is mentioned in the same breath as the 85 bears as the greatest of all time ? Is that analysts and players just amking assuptions without facts just like this fellow who is less qualified than those?
Sorry but I am not biting. And yes you are wasting your time if that is your proof as to why (a writer for a steelers website who makes up his own mathematical equations who does not even give us a reason why his math should be trusted with no logic provided or weighted categories) the Ravens defense should be excluded.
As to the Yards thing they do have us beat but the cool thing is that how many yards you allow has dick all to do with how the game turns out. It is about points.
Vilma sueing Goodell
in NFC
Posted
Well that is definitely one logical perspective about the situation, and I cant say it is not.
That said just thinking about it from my personal perspective I would have waited as well. there are a couple of reasons. First yes I would want to wait until the whole thing was over so I could see everything that was in his hand first. If it was just a ho hum punishment that amounted to nothing than I would let it alone. That being said since it was so severe he now knows what is up Goodell's sleeve as far as punishments. Now that it is in court it si all up to Goodell to prove his case. He is the accuser and Vilma is innocent until proven guilty so now the proof has to be brought out by Goodell if he wants to win.
Another thing Vilma probably has taken into consideration is the Patriots spygate scandal. The one where Goodell destroyed evidence. What if Goodell did that and that is why no evidence is brought up ? What if the evidence is not conclusive except from just some sworn statement by a NFL lackey?
Vilma may have baited a trap and Goodell thinking he was all powerful may have just walked right into it. If there is indded no evidence either ever or anymore than he fucked himself out of a case since this is not a NFL matter but a civil matter in a civil court so the burden of proof falls on Goodell.