who WILL defeat Eagles in NFC Champ? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

who WILL defeat Eagles in NFC Champ?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby bagobonez » Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:53 pm

KingGhidra wrote:
deluxe_247 wrote:Image


LOL

That bagobonez cat is crazy. He wants respect on a message board so bad he wants to bump up threads to show how cool he is. I have no problem saying I'm wrong about things. I'm wrong about particular players all the time, but he wants to use 1 instance of being right to show how great he is. I still think he's ignorant and a moron just by the things he types. I shouldn't expect too much from someone from Texas with a Rush avatar I guess huh?

Kids are CRAZY these days.


Hey, the only reason I'm going to bring up that Portis vs Alexander thread again is to get everyone to stop and think that "hey, maybe bagobonez isn't quite the idiot we thought he was. looks like he was pretty much right on about Alexander, and we were pretty much dead wrong". It's not so much to say "i told you so" it's just to get everyone to think outside the box for once in their lives, and actually realize that someone else might have as much or more fantasy insight than they do so that they stop and think about what they say, especially calling bagobonez an idiot, or ignorant, or out of his mind, or talk about how anyone who takes Shaun over Portis ought to be shot, etc.

I was man enough to say I was wrong about Mcnabb and TO (although TO's arrival to Philly was predicated on blatant breaking of league rules).

LOL, BTW, I only started using this Rush avatar to get all the McNabb @ss kissers all up in arms.

It's no sweat Ghidra, I'm not here to fight, I just want to prove my point without being called an idiot.
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

Postby Demented Avenger » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:15 am

deluxe_247 wrote:Image



;-D

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.
"The signature"
Demented Avenger
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 653
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Youngstown

Postby eaglesrule » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:36 pm

delusinal.

ok first of all the eagles didn't "break the rules" to get owens. If the case was so clear cut, why would baltimore and san fran suddenly relent? That argument makes zero sense. The eagles broke no rules -- the niners did. It is pretty obvious that out of spite they tried to trade an asset, and low and behold, maybe they weren't free to afterall. They didn't really seem to have much of a case considering that it didn't work out for them. That line of reasoning is BS, otherwise why wouldn't they have stuck to their guns, why did almost all sources say the arbitrator didn't think the niners and ravens had much fo acase, and why did the league award him to philly? must be a conspiracy. save your bs.

And about the eagles being mediocre without owens? I have heard your points, and they are incredibly poor ones.

Teams do vary year to year. We know that. But the core without owens hasn't changed appreciably and they were far from mediocre.

So basically, without owens, mcnabb, westbrook, and the kearse led defense would be "medicore"? That doesn't make any sense whatso ever. owens has accentuated the team and taken them to bigger hights, but serisouly. its liek suddenly without owens, mcnabb would suck or something. he was a good quarterback (by definition NOT medicore) without him. now he is approaching great.

westbrook produced without owens there too. so what is your point? that suddenly they can't function without him? how do you figure? I don't think the THIS YEAR qualification is accurate to be honest.

Owens doesn't play on defense, and the defense is far from medicore, considering they are top three in points allowed. and considering the eagles d isn't augmented by the fact that it is not a ball control offense, I think we can take something from that.

BTW, to those who are saying "well, the eagles would be medicore if you took away owens, mcnabb and westbrook" NO SHIT. "take away edgerrin, harrison and manning and the colts aren't all that"

of cours, the team is the team. without mcnabb, the eagles aren't really the eagles anymore.

They wouldn't be dominating, but they wouldn;t be struggling. So I guess you could say the offense would be "mediocre" in that sense. But overall, the team wouldn't be medicore. And saying "without owens" is misleading, because they would have signed duce and drafted differently anyway.

BTw, I think manning is the mvp as most sane people do. I fail to see how mcnabb not being mvp is really relevent in the least.

Besides, he will get votes. Is it all about stats? some people justify votes on other things. mcnabb's team is doing better, and he is having his statistically best season. I think it is a robbery if he wins, and wouldn;t want it like that. but it is not so far beyond the pale as to be absurd. I just don't think it is the more reasonable conclusion.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:40 pm

bagobonez wrote:And when you consider how the Eagles broke the rules in order to get Owens, it makes it all the more maddening to every other team in the NFL. If the Eagles do luck out and win the SUper Bowl, it will be predicated on a breakage of the rules considering Owens will have put them over the top.


You should no better than to expect blatant lies to be upheld on this forum Baggy.

FACT: The Eagles did not break any rules in acquiring Owens.
FACT: Owens is the one who pursued the Eagles after being traded to Baltimore, not Philly protesting the decision.
FACT: The arbitration that came about from Owens protesting was a system already set in place. The judge who presided over the hearing had been selected almost a full year prior to the event in case the Players Association brought forth a case for arbitration.

It's bad enough that you whine when other teams win because they're better, but flat out lying is just intolerable and only makes your whole stance weaker once you've been exposed for lying.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:52 pm

DraftDodger wrote: The coverage on Owens has accounted for a lot of Westbrook's numbers (and the production out of otherwise useless receivers).

If Owens goes down, you'll see just how bad the Eagles offense really is without him. Those other receivers can't pick up the slack like NE receivers.

The Eagles are a mediocre team without Owens. That's all I'm saying. Let's hope for the sake of Eagles fans that they don't have to find that out for themselves.


I guess you're one of those many people who were surprised that Westbrook amounted to anything this year. Did you actually look at his stats (in particular ypc) last year, or watch any games with him last year? Last year, Westbrook had no passing game to open up space for him, no TO threat to draw coverage, yet he still put up exceptional numbers for the amount of touches he had. Westbrook has produced with and without TO, so you really have no proof indicating his production would decline significantly without TO.

Secondly, the Eagles offense will suffer much if Owens goes down, but consider the differential. The Eagles have put up the 3rd most points in the league and allowed the 2nd least. Not only that, but their offense has scored nearly twice as many points as the defense has allowed. Supposing Owens did account for half of the Eagles entire offense and no one stepped it up in his absence (which is giving a lot of the benefit of the doubt to your argument), the Eagles would still be matching their opponents on average. How many teams could actually boast that if you took away their top performer?
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bagobonez » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:52 pm

Let's look at the facts here. In order to void the final year of his contract, Owens was required to submit his paperwork to void it by a certain deadline. He failed to do so. Therefore, he still belongs to the 49ers, since he still has one year left on his contract. Ok, so now that he's officially and technically still a 49er, the 49ers could have traded him to whoever they want for whatever they want. They chose to trade him to Baltimore for a 2nd round pick. That should have been the end of the discussion right there.

But wait! Stop the presses! Owens doesn't WANT to be a Raven?

"Where would you like to go Mr. Owens?"
"To Philadelphia."
"As you wish."

And just like that, Owens gets his wish. Now answer this. If the Ravens didn't get the shaft in this deal, why were they given a 5th round pick? If the Ravens had no rights to Terrell Owens whatsoever, why would they just get a FREE 5th round pick? They wouldn't. Hey I'm a Dallas fan, can Dallas get a 5th round pick since they didn't get Terrell Owens either? And why was Philadelphia required to give San Francisco DE Brandon Whiting? If the 49ers had no rights to Owens whatsoever, why would Philadelphia be required to give San Francisco a defensive end?

I bet you anything that if you go to that "arbitrator's" house and go through his closet, you will find a #5, Donovan McNabb jersey. That whole situation wreaked of bias.

By the way, what LIES did I tell?
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

Postby maddog60 » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:57 pm

bagobonez wrote:Now answer this. If the Ravens didn't get the shaft in this deal, why were they given a 5th round pick? If the Ravens had no rights to Terrell Owens whatsoever, why would they just get a FREE 5th round pick? They wouldn't. Hey I'm a Dallas fan, can Dallas get a 5th round pick since they didn't get Terrell Owens either? And why was Philadelphia required to give San Francisco DE Brandon Whiting? If the 49ers had no rights to Owens whatsoever, why would Philadelphia be required to give San Francisco a defensive end?


You need to read more.

http://www.sportsretort.com/2004/03/ter ... ens_t.html
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/7180353

Its quite easy to search and find the answers to your questions, but I'll sum it up: in the middle of the arbitration, the Ravens and Niners decided it would be better not to take the chance of Owens winning and getting nothing, so they talked to the Eagles, who gave them a 5th rounder and Brandon Whiting respectively to make all parties accept Owens signing with Philly. No arbitrator's ruling. No forcing the Eagles to fork over any compensation, it was their decision to accept the deal. This was the deal, not worked out by Owens or the Players Union, but by the three teams involved.

I bet you anything that if you go to that "arbitrator's" house and go through his closet, you will find a #5, Donovan McNabb jersey. That whole situation wreaked of bias.


Except that it never came to arbitration and the arbitrator never made a decision on the case, so his views are irrevelant even if you're completely baseless claim were correct by a stroke of luck.

By the way, what LIES did I tell?


I already quoted your lies at the beginning of my previous post, but since you're either incapable of reading altogether, or just can't understand your own words, I'll explain again. You (make notice of that key word), claimed that the Eagles "broke the rules" in order to sign Owens. The facts clearly show that the Eagles in no way broke any rules whatsoever.

Mindless rhetoric might make you seem brilliant to the uninformed reader, but it only makes your stance even more laughable to people who know what they're talking about, so I'd suggest some research into the topic before you make another completely uninformed post.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bagobonez » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:41 pm

Ok, so the arbitrator didn't officially make a ruling on it, but does anyone here question what that ruling would have been?

I mean seriously, why do you think the Ravens and 49ers came to an agreement? It makes sense for the Ravens to make the agreement because they basically get a free fifth round pick out of the deal. They knew, just as everyone else did, that the arbitrator was going to rule in favor of Philadelphia, so they might as well get a 5th round pick out of it since they knew they were going to lose out on T.O.

And what's so sick is that everyone was pretty much 100% sure that the arbitrator would rule in Philly's favor, otherwise Baltimore would have stuck to their guns and tried to sign T.O.

Once again, Owens and the Eagles get their way. Was there ever any doubt?
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

Postby maddog60 » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:01 am

bagobonez wrote:Ok, so the arbitrator didn't officially make a ruling on it, but does anyone here question what that ruling would have been?

I mean seriously, why do you think the Ravens and 49ers came to an agreement? It makes sense for the Ravens to make the agreement because they basically get a free fifth round pick out of the deal. They knew, just as everyone else did, that the arbitrator was going to rule in favor of Philadelphia, so they might as well get a 5th round pick out of it since they knew they were going to lose out on T.O.

And what's so sick is that everyone was pretty much 100% sure that the arbitrator would rule in Philly's favor, otherwise Baltimore would have stuck to their guns and tried to sign T.O.

Once again, Owens and the Eagles get their way. Was there ever any doubt?


First off, no the Eagles wouldnt automatically get TO if the arbitrator ruled on it. It was rumored that he would rule in TO's favor, emphasis on TO. His ruling would've potentially made TO a free agent, so TO could've gone anywhere, started a bidding war between two teams. He would not have been forced to go to Philly. You to make this crucial distinction that the arbitrator could not possible rule in favor of the Eagles, as they were not the plaintiff, despite how much you may want them to be to fit your nonsensical rants.

Secondly, and more importantly, had the arbitrator ruled on the case, either in TO's favor or not, it still would have been within the rules. Using the rules (as you seem so concerned over), whatever decision the arbitrator came to would have been correct, by the book, etc. Not following the arbitrator's decision, would have been breaking the rules, but with no decision, no breaking of the rules occurred. So, you're original point, your accusations that the Eagles broke the rules still remain entirely untrue.

Moreover, it's quite arrogant to assume that you or I actually know more about the case than the arbitrator. This is a person who listened to professionals (lawyers) on both sides present their cases. All us football fans only heard what the media spit out, and by did they love running awya with this story. We have to sift through the media bias, he actually got to hear from the representatives of the people involved in the dispute. So, logically, it only makes sense that the arbitrator had more information than any of us on the boards in regards to the legality of the TO issue and his trade to Baltimore. Now, expanding on that very simple and logical assumption, your statements about how it was almost gauranteed he would decide in favor of Owens only further reinforces the likelihood that Owens had a legitamite greivance in accordance to the league rules.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby bagobonez » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:15 am

maddog60 wrote:
bagobonez wrote:Ok, so the arbitrator didn't officially make a ruling on it, but does anyone here question what that ruling would have been?

I mean seriously, why do you think the Ravens and 49ers came to an agreement? It makes sense for the Ravens to make the agreement because they basically get a free fifth round pick out of the deal. They knew, just as everyone else did, that the arbitrator was going to rule in favor of Philadelphia, so they might as well get a 5th round pick out of it since they knew they were going to lose out on T.O.

And what's so sick is that everyone was pretty much 100% sure that the arbitrator would rule in Philly's favor, otherwise Baltimore would have stuck to their guns and tried to sign T.O.

Once again, Owens and the Eagles get their way. Was there ever any doubt?


First off, no the Eagles wouldnt automatically get TO if the arbitrator ruled on it. It was rumored that he would rule in TO's favor, emphasis on TO. His ruling would've potentially made TO a free agent, so TO could've gone anywhere, started a bidding war between two teams. He would not have been forced to go to Philly. You to make this crucial distinction that the arbitrator could not possible rule in favor of the Eagles, as they were not the plaintiff, despite how much you may want them to be to fit your nonsensical rants.

Secondly, and more importantly, had the arbitrator ruled on the case, either in TO's favor or not, it still would have been within the rules. Using the rules (as you seem so concerned over), whatever decision the arbitrator came to would have been correct, by the book, etc. Not following the arbitrator's decision, would have been breaking the rules, but with no decision, no breaking of the rules occurred. So, you're original point, your accusations that the Eagles broke the rules still remain entirely untrue.

Moreover, it's quite arrogant to assume that you or I actually know more about the case than the arbitrator. This is a person who listened to professionals (lawyers) on both sides present their cases. All us football fans only heard what the media spit out, and by did they love running awya with this story. We have to sift through the media bias, he actually got to hear from the representatives of the people involved in the dispute. So, logically, it only makes sense that the arbitrator had more information than any of us on the boards in regards to the legality of the TO issue and his trade to Baltimore. Now, expanding on that very simple and logical assumption, your statements about how it was almost gauranteed he would decide in favor of Owens only further reinforces the likelihood that Owens had a legitamite greivance in accordance to the league rules.


Good point, but the whole thing still doesn't seem right. I still see no reason why an arbitrator should have ever been brought into the equation. He failed to submit his paperwork on time, and that's the bottom line. Technically it still seems like the Ravens, 49ers AND Eagles broke the rules. Technically Owens was still a 49er. Technically he was traded to Baltimore so technically he was a Raven. Now why are these 3 teams allowed to back out of the deal after the deal's already been done?

Hey, Antonio Bryant's having more success with Cleveland than he did in Dallas. Is it too late for Dallas to back out of the deal and send Quincy Morgan back to Cleveland?

Looks like San Diego doesn't need Philip Rivers after all. Is it too late for them to draft someone else?

Something tells me that if this situation would have been some 4th string WR, and he would have failed to submit his paperwork on time to void the final year of his contract, he would have gone where he was told to go, and that would have been the end of it. But no sir! It's Terrell Owens. He's high-profile. He bitches and moans and he gets his way.

It's just like the Eli Manning thing, and just like John Elway did back when the Colts drafted him. It's wrong and it's stupid, and players should not be able to go over the NFL's heads.
"90% of the game is half mental" - John Madden
Image
bagobonez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4463
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Atop my league's fantasy throne

PreviousNext

Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 10:02 hours
(and 37 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact