|
Broncos @ Chiefs - Chiefs
Texans @ Panthers - Panthers
49ers @ Steelers - Steelers
Buccaneers @ Saints - Saints
Lion @ Vikings - Lions
Cardinals @ Bears - Cardinals
Patriots @ Bills - Patriots
Chargers @ Bengals - Bengals
Titans @ Browns - Titans
Falcons @ Giants - Falcons
Rams @ Redskins - Rams
Dolphins @ Jaguars - Dolphins
Ravens @ Raiders - Ravens
Cowboys @ Eagles - Cowboys
Seahawks @ Packers - Packers
Jets @ Colts - Colts |
|
|
Broncos @ Chiefs - Broncos
Texans @ Panthers - Panthers
49ers @ Steelers - 49ers
Buccaneers @ Saints - Saints
Lion @ Vikings - Lions
Cardinals @ Bears - Cardinals
Patriots @ Bills - Patriots
Chargers @ Bengals - Chargers
Titans @ Browns - Titans
Falcons @ Giants - Giants
Rams @ Redskins - Redskins
Dolphins @ Jaguars - Dolphins
Ravens @ Raiders - Ravens
Cowboys @ Eagles - Cowboys
Seahawks @ Packers - Seahawks
Jets @ Colts - Colts |
|
|
Broncos @ Chiefs - Broncos
Texans @ Panthers - Panthers
49ers @ Steelers - 49ers
Buccaneers @ Saints - Saints
Lion @ Vikings - Lions
Cardinals @ Bears - Cardinals
Patriots @ Bills - Patriots
Chargers @ Bengals - Chargers
Titans @ Browns - Titans
Falcons @ Giants - Giants
Rams @ Redskins - Rams
Dolphins @ Jaguars - Dolphins
Ravens @ Raiders - Ravens
Cowboys @ Eagles - Cowboys
Seahawks @ Packers - Packers
Jets @ Colts - Colts |
|
|
3 straight going with the cowboys?????
15-1 at the very possible best ever
the cowboys wont win |
|
|
"Rams @ Redskins - Redskins"
LOL |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
you know you're tripping when you have the cowboys over the eagles and the redskins over the rams LOL
bears will also beat the cardinals.. just watch lol |
|
|
yes the bears will beat possibly the best team in the NFC. you're right. |
|
AritheJoin Date: 2014-09-26
Post Count: 3664 |
Broncos @ Chiefs - Chiefs
Texans @ Panthers - Panthers
49ers @ Steelers - Steelers
Buccaneers @ Saints - Saints
Lion @ Vikings - Lions
Cardinals @ Bears - Cardinals
Patriots @ Bills - Patriots
Chargers @ Bengals - Chargers
Titans @ Browns - Browns
Falcons @ Giants - Giants
Rams @ Redskins - Rams
Dolphins @ Jaguars - Dolphins
Ravens @ Raiders - Ravens
Cowboys @ Eagles - Eh..Cowboys..?
Seahawks @ Packers - Packers
Jets @ Colts - Colts |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
no way cardinals are "possibly the best team in the nfc"
qb is eh
running game ain't there
receivers below average
they beat one of the worst teams in the nfc (the saints) who also has possibly the worst defense. they've proven nothing so far.
with one less mistake, the bears were taking the ACTUAL best team in the nfc into overtime with them. |
|
|
the cardinals were a #1 seed before their QB debacle last season.
look at carson palmers stats for his last 16 games.
14-2, 4k+ yards, 65% completion, 30 TD's.
the only question has been his health, and you not knowing that leads me to believe that you dont follow football very closely at all, and i am now taking all of your opinions with a grain of salt because you are not very knowledgeable.
ellington is a good RB when healthy
larry fitz is bad??? ok. they cant do anything with NOBODY throwing them the ball.
i wasnt basing them off of one game, thanks for assuming that moron.
"with one less mistake, the bears were taking the ACTUAL best team in the NFC into overtime with them"
lol @ this. the bears almost taking the packers into overtime says a lot more about how bad the packers are. you can act like losing the 7th best WR in the league to a 3r string WR wont be huge, you are a moron. your opinions are dumb and completely bias'd and have little logic behind them. |
|
|
oh and if you were wondering about his INT's, he has 12. 4 of them came in one game. |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
this shows you don't follow football very closely.. and you were saying i don't? LOL
"you can act like losing the 7th best WR in the league to a 3r string WR wont be huge"
yeah because james jones is a REALLY BAD replacement.. even though he used to be one of the best with aaron rodgers a few years ago. plus their receiving core is good enough without him.
and let me tell you that i never said larry fitzgerald was bad, you just pulled that from nowhere. |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
"the only question has been his health"
yeah, that says a LOT. players don't play good when they aren't healthy, in case you haven't figured that out yet.
and matt forte is, without a doubt, better than andre ellington.
i may be biased but i'm true.
and also to prove i don't just think highly of the bears: the bears defense still has a lot to go through to become great, and the cardinals defense is better than the bears |
|
|
and you were saying i don't? LOL
yes
"you can act like losing the 7th best WR in the league to a 3r string WR wont be huge"
yeah because james jones is a REALLY BAD replacement.. even though he used to be one of the best with aaron rodgers a few years ago.
never said he was bad, but going from #7 to arguably not even t50.........
"few years ago" lol get OUT.
plus their receiving core is good enough without him.
"good enough" they beat the lions in week 17 last year. and have since done nothing to better themselves but rather have gotten worse.
and let me tell you that i never said larry fitzgerald was bad, you just pulled that from nowhere.
you said the cardinals secondary was "below average", and you are now saying larry fitz is good. john brown got 80 less yards in his first year in the league, so john brown must be good too. which means the cardinals have two good receivers, which makes their WR core at LEAST deemed "good" you just contradicted yourself and now look dumb.
"yeah that says a LOT"
shut up you didnt even know he had health problems moron. you probabaly didnt know that he used to play for the bengals either.
"matt forte is better than andre ellington"
nobody is comparing the bears or debating that. you once again are dumb. forte is one of the best backs in the league.
"the bears defense blah blah"
the bears have possibly the worst secondary in the league and the bears front 7 is below average. a lot to go through is an understatement.
i have to go have a life, ill be on later. |
|
|
Damn I forgot to change from Cowboys to eagles |
|
BroBro264Join Date: 2011-07-12
Post Count: 28121 |
"receivers below average"
sorry but larry fitzgerald is still good, it's not his fault that he doesnt get thrown to as much anymore |
|
SigmaticsJoin Date: 2013-10-08
Post Count: 2583 |
Broncos @ Chiefs - Chiefs
Texans @ Panthers - Panthers
49ers @ Steelers - 49ers
Buccaneers @ Saints - Saints
Lion @ Vikings - Lions
Cardinals @ Bears - Cardinals
Patriots @ Bills - Patriots
Chargers @ Bengals - Bengals
Titans @ Browns - Titans
Falcons @ Giants - Falcons
Rams @ Redskins - Rams
Dolphins @ Jaguars - Dolphins
Ravens @ Raiders - Ravens
Cowboys @ Eagles - Eagles
Seahawks @ Packers - Packers
Jets @ Colts - Colts |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
the reason why i think the bears will beat the cardinals is the cardinals don't have the quarterback or receivers to do what the packers did.
not saying the cardinals don't have a good quarterback i'm saying carson palmer isn't aaron rodgers and larry fitzgerald is good but the packers receiving core is better.
and btw i'm not reading your book, amazingskill lol
the bears secondary was fine, aaron rodgers just threaded the needle to good wrs in good coverage and that's how they got 2 tds. |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
and brorbo yea larry fitzgerald is good but in this league you need more than one good receiver and i don't see any standouts other than him, maybe i will be proven wrong |
|
ChiwahwaJoin Date: 2009-02-19
Post Count: 1044 |
amazing
"larry fitz is bad??? ok. they cant do anything with NOBODY throwing them the ball."
that's what you said in an earlier post. you were quoting me on saying he was bad when i never said that. |
|
|
1. you said the cardinals WRs were below average, which they are not. they just had bad QBs throwing them the ball last season so their numbers dont reflect how good they are.
"the reason why i think the bears will beat the cardinals is the cardinals don't have the quarterback or receivers to do what the packers did.
not saying the cardinals don't have a good quarterback i'm saying carson palmer isn't aaron rodgers and larry fitzgerald is good but the packers receiving core is better.
and btw i'm not reading your book, amazingskill lol
the bears secondary was fine, aaron rodgers just threaded the needle to good wrs in good coverage and that's how they got 2 tds."
1. yes but the cardinals have a way better defense than the packers, and your garbage offense led by grandpa forte wont be able to run for 140+ or whatever he had.
2. you dont need a good QB to torch the bears ass secondary (one of the, if not the, worst in the league)
3. of course you arent going to read it because no matter how obvious i make it look that you are wrong, you still wont sway your homer opinion about the garbage bears.
4. "the bears secondary was fine"
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
rodgers went 18-23, 79% completion, 189 yards, 3 TD's 0 INTs
he doesnt put up those stats against even decent secondaries. its just that your secondary is THAT bad. |
|