Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rod Smith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Return of Lava
    ^ if you really believe that, start a poll.
    Do you really need one?

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    Rest asured JD most Broncos fans who understand the game will find more agreement with you that Lava. Anyone who can say that a team that has a running back that runs for 1300 to 1400 yards doesn't have a dominate rushing attack just does not understand the game of football. And to say that you can't have a dominate rushing attack and have a receiver or even two receivers reach a 100 catches does not understand the game of football.
    ^ if you really believe that, start a poll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by jdslick
    You sure cram a lot of idiocy into one post
    ^ was that your "football-related" response?

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by jdslick
    Well, I oviously agree with you, but what I said was, that it's not uncommon for receivers to have 100 catches on a season and a run oriented team to have receivers with 80 or 90 catches on the year.
    Agreed, I also pointed out that Denver accomplished having two receivers with a 100 catches and still had a back run for over 1400 yards. No matter what Lava says any team that has back gain that kind of yardage has a run oriented team that is dominate.

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Rest asured JD most Broncos fans who understand the game will find more agreement with you that Lava. Anyone who can say that a team that has a running back that runs for 1300 to 1400 yards doesn't have a dominate rushing attack just does not understand the game of football. And to say that you can't have a dominate rushing attack and have a receiver or even two receivers reach a 100 catches does not understand the game of football.

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by jdslick
    Where do I start? First I stand by what I said, Youy read into someones post what you want to read, then change the subject when you have no reasonable response. I do know what you do here. Everyone who can read knows what you do here.

    I usually don't agree with you, because you say some truly un-defendable things. Sometimes people agree with many of the points I raise and then many disagree, but you just want to argue for arguements sake.

    Believe me, you have never gotten me upset. You also have never proved me wrong at any time. You usually contradict yourself at some point in your argument. Being wrong seems to be your forte. I can't recall any time you've stated your case in a more persuasive manner than the person with whom you disagreed.

    Now go back and re-read my post which prompted you to respond in the manner in which you just did. You have no reasonable response to the football related comments, so you simply side- step them.
    OMG jd, ok you say i read into someone's post what i want to read. well i dont see what you mean. as far as you go, you are the one that picks the arguments with me. Look at most of the discussions me and you have been in it starts off with me talking to somebody else and then you butt in with "lava i dont think you know ____" then i start responding to you(oops i just proved you wrong didnt i. there goes your "you've never proved me wrong" argument) . so that clears that up. as far as i dont discuss football related topics, but instead side-step them, that makes no sense either, most of my 3500+ posts are about football, broncos football. anybody will tell you that too. In this discussion, how many times have i told you the same thing about this subject so i dont get you there. Wrong is my forte? well all i will say to that is whatever. if that was your way of insulting me on the sly, you failed cause that was just dumb. I give lots of facts to back up my claims and all i hear from people liek you is "i dont know about that bla bla bla". So when you really look at it. you took the discussion away from football by saying the little side paragraph that read

    "Now Lava reads into a post what he wants to read into it. I've noticed that he likes to start an argument then claim you started it and are being a big meanie. I have also noticed that when his mind is made up, that's it. He no longer wants to be provided any facts."

    Now, normally i would ignore you, but this makes me sick. Especially the part where you act like its my fault. People like you come on the board all the time. they start an altercation then when they get responded to, they act like that was the initiated move and complain publically that i started it. they ignore the fact that they themselves started the whole thing. I call them cowards. anyway about your football statement, a run oriented team and a DOMINANT rushing team are 2 totally different things. Broncos had a DOMINANT rushing team, we will not get many 100 catch WR seasons when we were as dominant as we werre this year. Almost all teams are run oriented with the exception of a couple passing teams, so those are different things. that's what i been sayin all along if you look and stop "reading into it what you want" then you said that i dont provide/accept facts in a discussion. another insult on the sly that you failed. ask anybody, i give much facts. i dont want to have to go through this again jd.

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Return of Lava
    just like i said, the rams had no DOMINANT run game. 1300 or 1400 yard back is no where near domination for 16 games running. we led the league in rushing yards we will not have a 90 catch WR if we run like that......NO team would.
    Here's your quote, you say its not that 1300 or 1400 yards is not a dominate run game and to the rest of the football world it is. Denver could still lead the league in rushing and have a receiver or even two get up to 90 or even a 100 catches its not impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    Well I did give facts, Anderson in his rookie season gained over 1400 yards and both McCaffery and Smith caught 100 passes each to be exact Mac had 101 and Rod had 100.
    TX, I KNOW THAT! I said 1400 yards gives more probability for a 100 catch WR than a 2000+ yard running team! What are you not understanding?

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Return of Lava
    all he said was that a 1300 or 1400 yard rushing team can have a 100 catch WR. he was trying to downplay rod abilities it seems to me. then i said we have a DOMINANT run team and that when you have a DOMINANT run team like we had 100 catch WR's are not likely unless you are the lions of old. You have given me no facts about anything so you be quiet
    Well I did give facts, Anderson in his rookie season gained over 1400 yards and both McCaffery and Smith caught 100 passes each to be exact Mac had 101 and Rod had 100.

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    JD has made good points and Lava no insult intended your facts and stuff as you put it seem is questionable at best.
    all he said was that a 1300 or 1400 yard rushing team can have a 100 catch WR. he was trying to downplay rod abilities it seems to me. then i said we have a DOMINANT run team and that when you have a DOMINANT run team like we had 100 catch WR's are not likely unless you are the lions of old. You have given me no facts about anything so you be quiet

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    JD has made good points and Lava no insult intended your facts and stuff as you put it seem is questionable at best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Return of Lava
    replied
    Originally posted by jdslick
    Now Lava reads into a post what he wants to read into it. I've noticed that he likes to start an argument then claim you started it and are being a big meanie. I have also noticed that when his mind is made up, that's it. He no longer wants to be provided any facts.
    you been studyin me huh? well i must say.......you're dead wrong. you dont know what i do here. i like facts and stuff like that. You on the other hand are here only to contradict people. where in any of your posts have you AGREED with me? Is eveything i say wrong or do you just WAIT UNTIL i say something you can pounce on? either way, it really doesnt matter to me. if i have an opinion, i will let you know what it is and we can go from there, at the end of the day, i have no hard feelings for anybody. you on the other hand are upset cause i must have proved you wrong one day so you spend time searching through my posts so you could get me back. Well you can hold your grudge but it aint affectin me buddy.

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by dhall26
    Matt Blundin? I remember that guy he used to be a CHIEF!!!!!! He sucked, heck even MARK VLASIC Looked better than him!
    Blundin was a perfect fit for the Squaws dungheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • dhall26
    replied
    Originally posted by Jared
    Well, the only scored like 340 points, which is good, but not as good as it should have been with that many yards. I think they gave up like 290 or something, so they were average on d, but clearly had trouble scoring points efficiently. They should have scored more often with that kind of offense.
    Matt Blundin? I remember that guy he used to be a CHIEF!!!!!! He sucked, heck even MARK VLASIC Looked better than him!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jared
    replied
    Originally posted by Return of Lava
    well, that just shut me up on that, lol. i cant believe they only won 9 games with a n offense like that, they must hve hd terrible defense, we're talking sub chiefs kind of D.

    Well, the only scored like 340 points, which is good, but not as good as it should have been with that many yards. I think they gave up like 290 or something, so they were average on d, but clearly had trouble scoring points efficiently. They should have scored more often with that kind of offense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X