Lol, Jenkins

[Idgit]

Conversely, just because you may not be predicting that loss doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Edit: nice catch on the towel message. I was so engrossed in the game I didn't notice it. It would be a good sig pic.

There's another good shot of it in the game day pics thread, too.

 

[Bleu Star]

bbgun and I couldn't be on farther ends of the spectrum for two posters who picked the team to finish within a game of each other.

I don't see your point about helter skelter at all, though. It's not like we drop games to bad teams, and it's not like anyone who's beaten us isn't in playoff contention. And it's not like any of the losses (with the possible exception of GB) weren't close games.

They can often time appear to be one big ball of confusion with no idea of which particular direction they want to take during any given game. The team that showed up yesterday was organized, focused, and hitting on all cylinders... I'm sure we can agree that the team we saw last night was not the team we have consistently seen all season long. If not then whatever. Point: Will the team we saw last night be the same team we see against DC & Philly? If we're actually going to make some semblance of noise in the playoffs and not be someone's ***** in the 1st round we had better be like the team we all witnessed last night on a more consistent basis.

We're all tickled pink today that we beat the Saints. That's all well & good. It will be all for naught though if we meet them in the playoffs and get our ***** handed to us. The Saints have shown over the course of the season that they can be very consistent in their formula for winning. They'll bounce back from the loss and go on to be very strong come playoff time. The loss against us is probably exactly what they needed.

Many here said run the ball and run it successfully... That was part of the formula for winning last night. We did exactly that and kept the Saints D off balance for the better part of the game. That formula needs to carry over to any and all upcoming contests.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

That they could win was never in doubt. Some people have the balls to pick against the Boys from time to time while others ritually chant "believe" until they finally get one right. Anyway, this is a good day for the front runners, who usually scatter like cockroaches after a loss. No offense.

Oh, you're scattering from your original assertion that there was no sound reason to believe the would win. Yet there was. And I wouldn't say you had "balls" by picking against the boys. If you can evaluate the talent we have and put the losses we've had aside, then someone whose mind is fit can make a reasonable assumption that we had just as good of a chance as the other team, despite records.

And no offense, your words were, "Of course they can win. But there's no sound reason to believe they will. If they do, it will be a wonderful surprise. Belief, like respect, has to be earned." --bbgun

And in reference to theebs it was, "This was a risk-free act on his part. He knew that the usual suspects would speed to his rescue if the realists (aka, fake "fans") dared deviate from the preferred narrative, and damn if that isn't exactly what happened. If he had any balls, he'd post this empty-headed feel-good hucksterism at DCC. "--bbgun

And "believing" for me was more of an assertion that we could and, given my gut feeling, would win the game. But you spouted nonsense such as the reason forums like DCC exist is because they're more "reality based" and the CZ is for intellectually dishonest, feel good, people.

And getting one right isn't the point I'm making. While I do believe I got one right, you claimed that there was no sound reason we would win. Never once did you mention players like Romo, Ware, Austin, Ogletree, Jenkins, Newman, Spencer or anyone else as a reason why we might win. So no sound reason? Yet you said, sure we could. Again, just pointing out the flaws in your paradoxical reasoning.

And you have yet to see the flaws in your own reasoning in that believing they "could" win (your words) was a form of belief. Yet you were in denial about the possibility because, there wasn't a sound reason and your ego was too bent on being right because it couldn't take the beating of another loss. Instead, you were aligning yourself with the DCC "realists" (LMAO) and CRAP crowd because you thought you'd be safer believing an 8-5 team could not possibly beat a 13-0 team.

Remember? "No sound reason that they will win." Just found it funny and, yeah, I'm kind of enjoying rubbing your nose in it, simply because of your rhetorical demeanor and attitude within your posts, which not only personally attacked me for "believing", but others as well.

And I noticed you "scattered" when I proposed that bet, which you wouldn't take. Pride is a terrible thing. But no one ever choked to death by swallowing their pride. Just a suggestion in case you don't feel like spamming the board with your negative drivel anymore.

 

[Temo]

Edit: nice catch on the towel message. I was so engrossed in the game I didn't notice it. It would be a good sig pic.

No one saw it during the game, it wasn't too obvious. It was the AP photos released after the game where I noticed it.

 

[bbgun]

This is the same local media that's being set upon by other fans, the players, the team's coaches, and now the national media we're talking about? Those bogeymen? Gotcha.

Um, can you say "conflict of interest"? You should know by now that mindless media hatred is the mother's milk of this forum. You'd be lost without it. JJT columns that knock the Boys in some way? Seven pages of lickspittled replies. Columns that praise the team or an individual? One page at most, peppered with backhanded compliments. Seriously, this is approaching the level of a sickness.

 

[Temo]

Um, can you say "conflict of interest"? You should know by now that mindless media hatred is the mother's milk of this forum. You'd be lost without it. JJT columns that knock the Boys in some way? Seven pages of lickspittled replies. Columns that praise the team or an individual? One page at most, peppered with backhanded compliments. Seriously, this is approaching the level of a sickness.

I agree with your core point, but your examples are wrong. JJT's columns deserve to be mocked, it's a brand of media coverage that focuses on criticizing player's by their personality shortfalls and arbitrary measures of their "clutchiness" rather than their actual play on the field.

For the most part, people don't complain when someone like Bob Strum posts an article critiquing Jason Garrett's play calling. They do complain when JJT posts another column about how this team hasn't "proven anything in December yet".

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Hey, better to be right twice as much as you're wrong than the reverse. When we start putting up 5-11 seasons again, then I'll stop "believing." As long as we're winning and have good coaches and a good QB, I'll continue to "believe."

That's just how it works.

8-5, now 9-5 gives me plenty of reasons to believe, especially after beating the 13-0 Saints. I have 9 reasons to believe.

 

[Hostile]

Um, can you say "conflict of interest"? You should know by now that mindless media hatred is the mother's milk of this forum. You'd be lost without it. JJT columns that knock the Boys in some way? Seven pages of lickspittled replies. Columns that praise the team or an individual? One page at most, peppered with backhanded compliments. Seriously, this is approaching the level of a sickness.

The only one it seems to make sick is you.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I would contend the exact opposite is true. There are those that predict gloom and doom for every game and continually chant "defeat" until they finally get one right. Considering our win loss record, the believe crowd is up 9-5.

I would tend to agree. But to some you, it seems you think that you come off as more humorous if you find reasons to doubt a team with a winning record.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

DAT=Dedicated Admirably to Theebs?

:laugh2:

Couldn't help it.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

There's a difference between being candid about the team and claiming week in and week out that the coaches are terrible, the players are not winners, the team has "no chance" to win, making bets that the team won't win, claiming the owner is a joke, claiming that season ticket holders are the problem with the team, etc., etc., etc.

Being candid about the team is noting the limitations of Barber this year. Realizing that Flozell Adams is declining due to his age. Recognizing that Sensabaugh is overrated by most fans. Being frustrated by the sometimes inconsistent play of the offense and defense this year.

The real "fanatics" are the ones that are so emotionally unstable that they have to protect themselves from their emotional breakdowns when the team loses by being so pessimistic that they can, at least, claim they were right all along when the team does lose. These are the truly sad fans. They are not "realists." They are not true "fans." They're just weak-minded individuals that allow their fear of rejection and loss to overcome their ability to enjoy the team and the game.

Well said.

 

[bbgun]

Oh, you're scattering from your original assertion that there was no sound reason to believe the would win. Yet there was.

Millions of oddsmakers disagree. They were wrong. So were Hos and Dbair. Big deal. How come no one called me out or asked me to "eat crow" after getting the Giant and Charger games wrong? Because my biases were in favor of the team, perhaps? Yep, that must be it.

And I wouldn't say you had "balls" by picking against the boys.

Sure I do, and this thread is Exhibit A. Instead of enjoying a lazy Sunday, I'm having to fend off three or four different people for daring to pick the Saints, which is tantamount to a thought crime or something. This place gets more Orwellian by the day.

If you can evaluate the talent we have and put the losses we've had aside, then someone whose mind is fit can make a reasonable assumption that we had just as good of a chance as the other team, despite records.

Saints have just as much talent or more, and they were playing at home. Again, why is this so complicated? Only a complete and total dupe would pick the team week after week after week.

And no offense, your words were, "Of course they can win. But there's no sound reason to believe they will. If they do, it will be a wonderful surprise. Belief, like respect, has to be earned." --bbgun

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Did I predict we'd get slaughtered or embarrassed? No? Did I wager against my team in any way? No.

And in reference to theebs it was, "This was a risk-free act on his part. He knew that the usual suspects would speed to his rescue if the realists (aka, fake "fans") dared deviate from the preferred narrative, and damn if that isn't exactly what happened. If he had any balls, he'd post this empty-headed feel-good hucksterism at DCC. "--bbgun

As true today as it was yesterday. BTW, do you believe that repeating the word believe has anything to do with last night's results? Just trying to gauge how dense you really are. This a message board, not a seance.

And "believing" for me was more of an assertion that we could and, given my gut feeling, would win the game.

Goody gumdrops!

But you spouted nonsense such as the reason forums like DCC exist is because they're more "reality based" and the CZ is for intellectually dishonest, feel good, people.

And?? Last time I checked, the denizens of DCC do not rely on scapegoats like the media or the fans to explain the team's problems. When T-New pushes a coach, or when Flo makes up a bull**** cover story about pushing Tuck, or when Wade erroneously accuses a reporter of calling them "losers," the DCC deviates from the Zone by remaining duly skeptical. They left for a reason, and not because this place was "fair and balanced."

And getting one right isn't the point I'm making. While I do believe I got one right, you claimed that there was no sound reason we would win. Never once did you mention players like Romo, Ware, Austin, Ogletree, Jenkins, Newman, Spencer or anyone else as a reason why we might win. So no sound reason? Yet you said, sure we could. Again, just pointing out the flaws in your paradoxical reasoning.

I can only imagine that "paradox" is on your word-of-the-day calendar, because you keep wearing it out. Do you even understand the words that you use? Maybe not. For some reason, you're hung up on the word "sound," which is basically a synonym for "good." And there was no sound reason to believe that a December weary team coming off two losses and a short week would defeat a quality team in the Superdome, where they usually scrafe the opposition. They proved me wrong, and I'm glad they did. You, on the other hand, are still out for blood for some reason.

And you have yet to see the flaws in your own reasoning in that believing they "could" win (your words) was a form of belief.

So? Ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday"? That means the Skins could beat us next Sunday night, even if the fans or the oddsmakers think different.

Yet you were in denial about the possibility because, there wasn't a sound reason and your ego was too bent on being right because it couldn't take the beating of another loss.

Lol. Are you a mind reader now? Smear campaign aside, I don't root for my team to fail so that I can win arguments against message board nobodies like yourself. The fact that the "realists" have been right for the last 12 years is punishment enough.

Instead, you were aligning yourself with the DCC realist and CRAP crowd because you thought you'd be safer believing an 8-5 team could not possibly beat a 13-0 team.

Safer? Here??

Remember? "No sound reason that they will win." Just found it funny and, yeah, I'm kind of enjoying rubbing your nose in it, simply because of your rhetorical demeanor and attitude within your posts, which not only personally attacked me for "believing", but others as well.

I have a better theory: I think you got your butt handed to you about a million times in the Poli Zone and this is your weakass attempt at revenge. Anyway, I can't wait to rub your nose in it when the Boys win a game you thought they'd lose. Oh wait, that will never happen. Shills would never stoop to such "treason."

And I noticed you "scattered" when I proposed that bet, which you wouldn't take.

I don't bet against my team. Shocking, no?

Pride is a terrible thing.

I hope Santa brings you some next Friday. Oh, and some "class" wouldn't hurt.

But no one ever choked to death by swallowing their pride. Just a suggestion in case you don't feel like spamming the board with your negative drivel anymore.

Hey, if I have to put up with your nonsense, then quid pro quo. That's the problem with shills: they don't think they're any more obnoxious than the "haters."

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Millions of oddsmakers disagree. They were wrong. So were Hos and Dbair. Big deal. How come no one called me out or asked me to "eat crow" after getting the Giant and Charger games wrong? Because my biases were in favor of the team, perhaps? Yep, that must be it.



Sure I do, and this thread is Exhibit A. Instead of enjoying a lazy Sunday, I'm having to fend off three or four different people for daring to pick the Saints, which is tantamount to a thought crime or something. This place gets more Orwellian by the day.



Saints have just as much talent or more, and they were playing at home. Again, why is this this so complicated? Only a complete and total dupe would pick the team week after week after week.



Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Did I predict we'd get slaughtered or embarrassed? No? Did I wager against my team in any way? No.



As true today as it was yesterday. BTW, do you believe that repeating the word believe has anything to do with last night's results? Just trying to gauge how dense you really are. This a message board, not a seance.



Goody gumdrops!



And?? Last time I checked, the denizens of DCC do not rely on scapegoats like the media or the fans to explain the team's problems. When T-New pushes a coach, or when Flo makes up a bull**** cover story about pushing Tuck, or when Wade erroneously accuses a reporter of calling them "losers," the DCC deviates from the Zone by remaining duly skeptical. They left for a reason, and not because this place was "fair and balanced."



I can only imagine that "paradox" is on your word-of-the-day calendar, because you keep wearing it out. Do you even understand the words that you use? Maybe not. For some reason, you're hung up on the word "sound," which is basically a synonym for "good." And there was no sound reason to believe that a December weary team coming off two losses and a short week would defeat a quality team in the Superdome, where they usually scrafe the opposition. They proved me wrong, and I'm glad they did. You, on the other hand, are still out for blood for some reason.



So? Ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday"? That means the Skins could beat us next Sunday night, even if the fans or the oddsmakers think different.



Lol. Are you a mind reader now? Smear campaign aside, I don't root for my team to fail so that I can win arguments against message board nobodies like yourself. The fact that the "realists" have been right for the last 12 years is punishment enough.



Safer? Here??



I have a better theory: I think you got your butt handed to you about a million times in the Poli Zone and this is your weakass attempt at revenge. Anyway, I can't wait to rub your nose in it when the Boys win a game you thought they'd lose. Oh wait, that will never happen. Shills would never stoop to such "treason."



I don't bet against my team. Shocking, no?



I hope Santa brings you some next Friday. Oh, and some "class" wouldn't hurt.



Hey, if I have to put up with your nonsense, then quid pro quo. That's the problem with shills: they don't think they're any more obnoxious than the "haters."

I thought I'd have to respond. But I assume most readers will see this for what it is. I do wish you would leave this unfair and unbalanced place and spend more time at the DCC. I think you fit in better over there anyway. lmao!

 

[bbgun]

The only one it seems to make sick is you.

Observing aberrant behavior and drawing a conclusion is a "sickness"? That's a first.

 

[bbgun]

I thought I'd have to respond. But I assume most readers will see this for what it is.

Translation: you punked out. Have a [strike]paradoxical[/strike] nice day.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Translation: you punked out. Have a [strike]paradoxical[/strike] nice day.

Pretty much.

 

[iceberg]

Notice something on his towel?

my new win7 background. : )

 

[bbgun]

I swear some of them need to get a room. This thread was about Mike Jenkins.

Don't blame me. My first post was all about Jenkins. And then the usual suspects moved in ..

 

[jimmy40]

Goody gumdrops!

goody gumdrops smack. Outstanding!

 

[Bleu Star]

Translation: you punked out. Have a [strike]paradoxical[/strike] nice day.

This..