Karnzy

Quote Originally Posted by chargers6901:

Idk how you could lose respect for this horse?!?!? I don't usually put people on blast but you are an idiot. The horse ran his butt off. The trip clearly didn't suit. Not sure if the distance wasn't for him considering the grueling campaign on top of the fact he did get injured( according to coburn he got injured coming out of the gate) but still pressed on.  No respect lost for that horse at all.  As far as coburn goes id say definitely lost some respect from a lot of people. But it was pure. And truth. Dude didn't sugar coat anything. Only if he woulda made his point before the race. I posted in another thread that all triple crown races should have a point system. Not just the derby. Obviously  with each race caring more points than any other 3 yr old race. It would force trainers/owners to enter their horses into each leg. Sure u coulda had the same outcome with the same entries. But IMO if it was a point system the Tonalist connections woulda had to run their horse in more than just the Peter Pan to have enough points to get into the Belmont. 

Quote Originally Posted by Upside:

 

Quote Originally Posted by Upside:

 Good luck on Sam .. I have an 0-15 stat that he does not finish 1/2/3 .. 

Quote Originally Posted by Greyhound:

He was running on the wrong lead in the stretch in The Withers and The Wood.

That's straight from the trainer.   If he gets, that lead changed this time he might be stronger down the stretch.

Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

 

So what did I say was wrong?

Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:

You are trying to convince yourself that you are only pointing out the numbers but in reality, you just want to point out he numbers that fit your side of the argument.

1. Yes, teams are built more tilt towards their own divisions. Why? It's because you can go 8-8 but you still can go to playoffs if you win your own division. There are many examples of this so to argue otherwise just doesn't.....

2. You used both the Giants and Titans to make your point but do you even know they were both on the Broncos' schedule as well? Den also got to play Oak twice and I don't believe the Raiders are an offensive powerhouse.

It's ok if you want to argue Hawks' defensive numbers were inflated but so were those for Den.

Quote Originally Posted by frank the tank:



Huge different is that Rams are division Rivals. Everyone in the division pretty much builds their team to beat their rivals. They obviously know them better than the Broncos do. That's why Niners, Cardinals, Seahawks, RAms, all play each other competitively. No reason to compare Broncos and Rams.

Quote Originally Posted by bob696969:

You can throw that weak 8 as an anomaly. seattle was missing both their starting tackles that game and the back ups were completely overmatched by robert quinn and chris long. russell wilson took alot of sacks as if it was almost the game plan to not make any risky throws, take sacks, punt and play defense. alot of seahawk drives were stopped by bad drops by the recievers or penalties and alot of rams drives were sustained by seattle defensive penalties.

yes the seahawks should have lost that one and got bailed out by terrible play-calling by rams offense when on the goal line in the last few seconds. it was just one of those wierd thursday games.

Karnzy - who know who else looked terrible on one of those wierd thursday games and got outplayed by an inferior opponent? The broncos! Once again, broncos played sloppy, made alot of mistakes and lost to a team they could beat 9 out of 10 times.

Karnzy - you are very selective in trying to find reasons to back the broncos. you say seattles number defensive rating is due to a few games agaisnt poor offenses... well how about the broncos racking up points against alot of the worst defenses in the league! and the high altitude of mile high gives the broncos high pace offense an inherent advantage vs defenses in the second half of home games, where defenses get gassed and give up points like a sieve. eg - the ravens, redskins, titans games were all tight in first half, and blowouts in second half.

the broncos offense is great. but you cant haveit both ways by saying the seahawks played weak offenses and then ignore that the broncos played alot of terrible defenses.

the broncos had one of the easiest schedules in the league. the seahawks had a much tougher schedule.

Quote Originally Posted by metalbill:

Rams were 7-9 in the best division in the league, they're not that bad of a football team.

It's no secret the Hawks aren't as good on the road as they are at home, you can say the same thing with 90% of all teams in all sports.

Quote Originally Posted by NFLJOE: