Joined: Sep 03 2005 Posts: 7647 Location: The Midlands
Havent played Durham this year, but I know they made the playoffs before being demolished by Glasgow.
Played against Hallam, Leeds, Derby (All losses), Leicester (won), Nottingham (lost), Liverpool (won), Loughborough (lost) We were also meant to play Lincoln, but the game hasn't happened...
One of our LBs is GB Youth, shame he missed the last 2 games after breaking his leg the day after Nottingham. x_x
ST_CONROY wrote:It promotes hazardous play with a lack of ball security from the offence and safe play from the defence. What it is basically saying is to end a game you need a TD. That means the Offence have got to get it another 35 yards which, if they haven't been able to win in regulation, you can assume would be difficult and result in ridiculous plays, which isn't entertaining. Whereas the defence can just go into nickel/prevent defence and camp on the goal line, keeping them to just a FG knowing that they can still win the game.
It's a ridiculous idea, in any incarnation. The team to score any point first in OT should win, even more so in the play-offs. Take us versus Arizona. We came back from 21 down to tie and get it to OT. Instead of the TD they scored we take it down field and kick a FG. It would be ridiculous for us then to have to give Arizona the ball for them to score when we would have deservedly won. It's just a ridiculous idea.
If your QB is good enough, you wont need overtime. According to your previous rants.
Joined: May 09 2003 Posts: 5103 Location: Not Ford Field
Dead Man Walking wrote:Poor Donovan if it goes through.
Not sure i see much sense in us making the move. If we are going to take Bradford then why do we want to trade for a 33 year old QB who's best is behind him? It has been denied by all involved and looks highly unlikely that it will go through
Joined: Sep 03 2005 Posts: 7647 Location: The Midlands
My Raiders draft predictions for the first 4 rounds:
1 - Bruce Campbell - OT 2 - Patrick Robinson - CB 3 - Lamarr Houston - DT 4 - Dan LeFevour - QB
Campbell is an Athletic freak, who can actually play a bit at least, and isn't a major reach at #8.
Robinson is a 1st round quality CB who falls because of depth, and outside Asomugha there's nobody worth talking about playing CB.
Houston falls from the bottom of the 2nd straight to us, he's an explosive DT which would actually give us a scary looking D-Line potentially.
LeFevour is like Tebow, only he can throw. Put up huge numbers at Central Michigan, and Al could see him as the long term successor to Gradkowski, Russell should be nowhere near a locker room, unless he's the towel boy.
V For Vendetta wrote:My Raiders draft predictions for the first 4 rounds:
1 - Bruce Campbell - OT 2 - Patrick Robinson - CB 3 - Lamarr Houston - DT 4 - Dan LeFevour - QB
Campbell is an Athletic freak, who can actually play a bit at least, and isn't a major reach at #8.
Robinson is a 1st round quality CB who falls because of depth, and outside Asomugha there's nobody worth talking about playing CB.
Houston falls from the bottom of the 2nd straight to us, he's an explosive DT which would actually give us a scary looking D-Line potentially.
LeFevour is like Tebow, only he can throw. Put up huge numbers at Central Michigan, and Al could see him as the long term successor to Gradkowski, Russell should be nowhere near a locker room, unless he's the towel boy.
You've not given up on JaMarcus have you ??
Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.
Joined: Nov 05 2006 Posts: 3383 Location: On t'internet in Lancs.
El Pac Carnegie wrote:Not sure i see much sense in us making the move. If we are going to take Bradford then why do we want to trade for a 33 year old QB who's best is behind him? It has been denied by all involved and looks highly unlikely that it will go through
Rams GM has said reports of a deal are 'utterly ridiculous' so it looks like it could be Arizona,Buffalo or Oakland it says on NFL.com.Maybe the Vikings could go for him if Farve finally retires for good.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
El Pac Carnegie wrote:Not sure i see much sense in us making the move. If we are going to take Bradford then why do we want to trade for a 33 year old QB who's best is behind him? It has been denied by all involved and looks highly unlikely that it will go through
Obviously if you got McNabb you wouldn't be going Bradford, you'd take Suh.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
