Why the Cowboys will go 0-16 this year.

sureletsrace;2797441 said:
BB,

I'm truly sorry that my sarcasm is not up to your standards. I awoke in pain and sweats thrice last night worrying about your approval of my post. Please forgive me.

More sarcasm. More fail. Most respondents thought your post bombed, so no need to single me out.
 
dcfanatic;2796857 said:
Where's the article?

Lol oh my god I hate when my editor says that.

If a game is over at 9 and its 10:01, I'll get an email saying, "Where's the article?"
 
sureletsrace;2796854 said:
Well everyone, I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but the '09 Cowboys are screwed.

#1 WR- Roy Williams - Lacks motivation. He doesn't "fight for the ball". Horrible @ running routes.

http://www.youtube.com/v/sbb7aSpB3XU&hl

********************************

#2 WR- Miles Austin - Not "proven". Green Bay doesn't count guys.

http://www.youtube.com/v/0x6O2u2n2LY&hl

********************************

#3 WR- Patrick Crayton - Slowest man on earth. Also has the worst hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pekJoqMICYM

********************************

I could go on forever. Don't even come to me about Jason Witten. With TO gone, he's going to be triple teamed. Even then, there will still somehow be enough players on the field to cover our god-awful WR's and sacking Romo and filling the non-existent gaps created by our horrid OL.

Same with Marty B. And Felix, Barber, and Choice.

Don't all of you understand? I saw a fact on NFL.com the other day that was interesting. No team has ever won a Super Bowl without TO, Brad Johnson, Greg Ellis, Chris Canty, and RW31(38?). Ever. EVER.

I don't see how we'll even get into field goal range.

"With the first pick in the 2010 Draft, the Dallas Cowboys select..."

Mark your calendars, you heard it here first.

the only one of those that has a sb ring is brad. this is just a stupid post.
 
jem88;2796991 said:
God, there is nothing more annoying than people who respond to posts with the solitary 'fail'. It smacks of post-count padding and adds nothing to the conversation (cue the obvious 'fail' replies to this post.)

BrAinPaiNt;2796993 said:
There is nothing more annoying than people who respond to posts complaining about posts with the solitary 'fail'. It smacks of post-count padding and adds nothing to the conversation (cue the obvious 'fail' replies to this post.)

;)

:lmao: <--- more postcount padding in a wasteland of a thread.
 
Hostile;2797011 said:
Why are people so hung up on post counts.

I just padded mine. Who the hell really cares?

I know right. :laugh2:

pad pad pad
 
Bleu Star;2797844 said:
:lmao: <--- more postcount padding in a wasteland of a thread.

http://i18.***BLOCKED***/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/RUE.jpg
 
bbgun;2797449 said:
More sarcasm. More fail. Most respondents thought your post bombed, so no need to single me out.

omg this is comedy. bbgun adds another to those who's skin he has snuggled up under.
 
sbuscha;2797823 said:
How do these people find the internet?

They look for the pointed finger of the venerable Al Gore & head for zee hillz..
 
jzcowboy;2797193 said:
Why are they being recorded if they mean nothing? Why do us lurkers get bashed as our post meaning nothing because that number is small?


These are all good questions that serve to pad my count.
 
i love the fact that some folk are still responding as if the original post was serious
 
BrAinPaiNt;2796993 said:
There is nothing more annoying than people who respond to posts complaining about posts with the solitary 'fail'. It smacks of post-count padding and adds nothing to the conversation (cue the obvious 'fail' replies to this post.)

;)
Touche! (further padding...)
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
464,604
Messages
13,821,395
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top