It's obviously Bears over coltsI hope everyone doubts the Bears again these two week so we can upset everyone again!
It's obviously Bears over colts
I will doubt the Bears just like I did all season. Screw you Bears. GOOOOO COLTS!
The Colts need to win, since the worse the Bears do, the better the Eagles' draft pick will be.
Packers fans don't count. For anything.Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Packers fans count for alotPackers fans don't count. For anything.Our team just didn't this season, but give them a few years and they can easily be back up to par if not great
Colts over Bears for me. Stop the Bears running game and the Bears have to rely on Grossman, and ... they won't be able to win it then.
No matter how much you and Sigmund Freud want it to be, 'mother' is not a curse word.
Your name would be perfect if you were a Patriots fan.
I'm going Colts over Bears, 21-13.
Nah, I'd go with it being perfect for a Saints fan honestly. Saints being beaten by that massively recharged Bears defense ... smurfin' CRUSHED the peoples hopes.
No matter how much you and Sigmund Freud want it to be, 'mother' is not a curse word.
I've got the bears winning the SP, cuz I'm a pats fan.
btw, why is there a such penalty as "facemasking" (not facemask). A defender jumps and hits the ball, and gets a penalty for it?
thanks blitz ace for the sig
If you mean the play when Hobbs I believe it was jumped up and clouded Wayne's view of the ball then I'm pretty sure that it was because just as pushing the reciever before he can get the ball interferes with the fairness of the game, blocking the reciever's sight of the ball interferes with it just as much.
No matter how much you and Sigmund Freud want it to be, 'mother' is not a curse word.
yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.
thanks blitz ace for the sig
What I don't get, is if I'm running after you and the ball hits me in the back of the head, wouldn't that be the same thing? Oh, and there was a play when a Pats receiver went up to catch it, so the guy started to tackle him, before the ball got there, so he ended up not catching it. I'd think that'd be interference. I don't quite understand those rules I guess...
I hate the Colts, doesn't matter who they are playing, I want them to lose. Plus I want to see the Superbowl Shuffle!
THE JACKEL
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
Being turned around or not is all the difference. It is the difference in making sure the guy doesn't catch the ball and trying to make a play on the ball yourself. He didn't try to make a play on the ball. All he did was make it impossible for the ball to even be caught by the receiver. It isn't much different from pushing the guy so he can't catch it...maybe it is but the principal is the same.
That's the difference. Hobbs wasn't making a play on the ball. He didn't try to get the ball or even look for the ball. Had he been it would have been perfectly legal. But he wasn't trying to get the ball. He was trying to block Wayne's vision.
Thank God I drafted Saturday in my NFL Playoff pool. Saturday, you touchdown MACHINE!
hahaha that made me giggle doomie
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
