The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It starts tonight, I think.
No doubt I'll moan for the next 4 months about not having Sky SPorts Extra, but it's worth it.
At least the Patriots - Raiders game is on Sky Sports 1, soI'll watch it.
So yeah, go Raiders (or more specifically, go Randy Moss's hair) and beat those scummy Patriots for winning the Superbowl again :-(
Fantasy NFL doesn't start until week 3 though (I think), and there's a salary cap this year (Booo), though I'll still come top again this year (If we all enter, that is).
That's all.
Raiders ftw.
But Seahawks for the Superbowl.
No doubt I'll moan for the next 4 months about not having Sky SPorts Extra, but it's worth it.
At least the Patriots - Raiders game is on Sky Sports 1, soI'll watch it.
So yeah, go Raiders (or more specifically, go Randy Moss's hair) and beat those scummy Patriots for winning the Superbowl again :-(
Fantasy NFL doesn't start until week 3 though (I think), and there's a salary cap this year (Booo), though I'll still come top again this year (If we all enter, that is).
That's all.
Raiders ftw.
But Seahawks for the Superbowl.
Page:
To be fair, the Raiders had more problems than that, AJ.
:D
Plus Kansas did well last year. Not great, but well.
I too am glad for the 49ers that they got rid of Erikson. Senile old man he was.
:D
Plus Kansas did well last year. Not great, but well.
I too am glad for the 49ers that they got rid of Erikson. Senile old man he was.
Cong_Man wrote:
> Umm, I haven't actually bothered watching NFL sinces the datys of the
> 49ers having the killer Montana/Rice/Taylor combination. Who needs a
> running games when you can win three consecutive superbowls by just
> throwing the ball?
Raiders/Titans/Chiefs last season are proof of why that doesn't work.
Three of the best passing teams in the league, but Oakland had no RB, Tennesee couldn't find a good one until Chris Brown, and by then there were about 3 weeks left in the season, and the Chiefs lost Holmes early and then proceeded to lose about 7 of their first 9 games. Once they discovered a good combination with Blaylock and Johnson, they started to win again.
As a result of not having a half back, they all failed last season.
> Umm, I haven't actually bothered watching NFL sinces the datys of the
> 49ers having the killer Montana/Rice/Taylor combination. Who needs a
> running games when you can win three consecutive superbowls by just
> throwing the ball?
Raiders/Titans/Chiefs last season are proof of why that doesn't work.
Three of the best passing teams in the league, but Oakland had no RB, Tennesee couldn't find a good one until Chris Brown, and by then there were about 3 weeks left in the season, and the Chiefs lost Holmes early and then proceeded to lose about 7 of their first 9 games. Once they discovered a good combination with Blaylock and Johnson, they started to win again.
As a result of not having a half back, they all failed last season.
Cong_Man wrote:
> Umm, I haven't actually bothered watching NFL sinces the datys of the
> 49ers having the killer Montana/Rice/Taylor combination. Who needs a
> running games when you can win three consecutive superbowls by just
> throwing the ball?
That's all very well until people figured out the way to beat the West Coast Offence is to beat up on the QB. Still happy to hear Nolan's going back to a purer west coast offence than Erikson ran.
> Umm, I haven't actually bothered watching NFL sinces the datys of the
> 49ers having the killer Montana/Rice/Taylor combination. Who needs a
> running games when you can win three consecutive superbowls by just
> throwing the ball?
That's all very well until people figured out the way to beat the West Coast Offence is to beat up on the QB. Still happy to hear Nolan's going back to a purer west coast offence than Erikson ran.
Umm, I haven't actually bothered watching NFL sinces the datys of the 49ers having the killer Montana/Rice/Taylor combination. Who needs a running games when you can win three consecutive superbowls by just throwing the ball?
Clazon wrote:
> Haha.
>
> Classic. San Fran beating someone, with like 2 good players.
>
> Well done them. I used to like them, but then the whole Jeff/Tyrell
> battlke was stupid.
Of the things that get my goat about the niners recently, the biggest had to be getting rid of Mariucci, who took them to the playoff 3 out of 4 years I think, despite losing Rice in his first season (I've not forgotten, Mr Sapp!) and Steve Young in his penultimate season.
Why did they do that? Because he had disagreements with the GM and with Bill Walsh, who although the man was a genius, he also seemed like he was hanging around causing trouble as an "advisor". Mariucci then went on to sign the biggest contract for a HC ever with the Lions, and is now slowly but surely acquiring the team he built in the bay area in detroit.
Then they replace Mooch with Erikson, who has a history of taking good teams down into the gutter. He ditched Owens and Garcia, and drafted a ridiculous number of kickers, I seem to remember (I think someone told him the importance of the kicking game and he took it too far). I also remember a quote from him stating that he "thinks the main difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4 is the number of down linemen." The man is clearly a genius.
So, I have high hopes for Nolan, I think he has the niners moving in the right direction. They still need to fit a few things in place, and I'm still not entirely convinced that taking one of two less than outstanding QBs in the first round is a good move, and I might have prefered to see them do something a little more like San Deigo did with Vick and Tomlinson, but what do I know?
Sorry, rant over
> Haha.
>
> Classic. San Fran beating someone, with like 2 good players.
>
> Well done them. I used to like them, but then the whole Jeff/Tyrell
> battlke was stupid.
Of the things that get my goat about the niners recently, the biggest had to be getting rid of Mariucci, who took them to the playoff 3 out of 4 years I think, despite losing Rice in his first season (I've not forgotten, Mr Sapp!) and Steve Young in his penultimate season.
Why did they do that? Because he had disagreements with the GM and with Bill Walsh, who although the man was a genius, he also seemed like he was hanging around causing trouble as an "advisor". Mariucci then went on to sign the biggest contract for a HC ever with the Lions, and is now slowly but surely acquiring the team he built in the bay area in detroit.
Then they replace Mooch with Erikson, who has a history of taking good teams down into the gutter. He ditched Owens and Garcia, and drafted a ridiculous number of kickers, I seem to remember (I think someone told him the importance of the kicking game and he took it too far). I also remember a quote from him stating that he "thinks the main difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4 is the number of down linemen." The man is clearly a genius.
So, I have high hopes for Nolan, I think he has the niners moving in the right direction. They still need to fit a few things in place, and I'm still not entirely convinced that taking one of two less than outstanding QBs in the first round is a good move, and I might have prefered to see them do something a little more like San Deigo did with Vick and Tomlinson, but what do I know?
Sorry, rant over
49ers?
Gay.
Seahawks all the way mate (even though we lost booo)
Gay.
Seahawks all the way mate (even though we lost booo)
Heh. I meant San Fran had "like 2 good players"!
But I don't like the Eagles anyway.
But I don't like the Eagles anyway.
Take it you don't like the Eagles, then?
:-)
:-)
Haha.
Classic. San Fran beating someone, with like 2 good players.
Well done them. I used to like them, but then the whole Jeff/Tyrell battlke was stupid.
Classic. San Fran beating someone, with like 2 good players.
Well done them. I used to like them, but then the whole Jeff/Tyrell battlke was stupid.
I can feel the excitement brewing in your typing.
Page: