Re: NFL Chat 3 : Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:55 pm  

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

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:19 am  

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.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:12 am  

ST_CONROY wrote:

Apparently Donovan McNabb could be a Ram for a 2nd round pick (33rd) and Atogwe. (although there are reports denying this now).

Eagles get the better part of the trade if it goes down.

Poor Donovan if it goes through.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:26 am  

Jint wrote:

If your QB is good enough, you wont need overtime. According to your previous rants.

Indeed, but unfortunately sometimes your defence lets you down.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:27 pm  

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

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:50 pm  

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.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:12 pm  

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 ??

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:22 pm  

I wouldnt have him as the QB on my uni team!

Maybe he can learn Left Tackle...

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:41 pm  

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.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:48 pm  

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.