Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

King Kong wrote:Dude, you got a f'in problem with it then stop patting yourself on the back for picking Denver to lose last year.

Huh? I don't have a problem, I was pointing out and promoting the good picks EVERYONE made (8 people had at least one SB team correct, Rupert's # of playoff teams, etc) ...

Yes, I did pick Seattle to beat Denver last year, that's exact. Other people picked that, too. Not a big deal, as I've said, it's just for fun and it's interesting to see what everyone thought would happen.

I don't think it's a competition, but you are the one who proposed a 'scoring' system that would reward people for picking the SB winner - which is common sense since that's usually what people are trying to do - but since you have no chance of having the SB winner you've changed your stance to say that picking the loser is the same as picking the winner. Arguing pretty hard for that, so congrats if NE loses the SB. Good job!

Reaser wrote:

King Kong wrote:Dude, you got a f'in problem with it then stop patting yourself on the back for picking Denver to lose last year.

Huh? I don't have a problem, I was pointing out and promoting the good picks EVERYONE made (8 people had at least one SB team correct, Rupert's # of playoff teams, etc) ...

Yes, I did pick Seattle to beat Denver last year, that's exact. Other people picked that, too. Not a big deal, as I've said, it's just for fun and it's interesting to see what everyone thought would happen.

I don't think it's a competition, but you are the one who proposed a 'scoring' system that would reward people for picking the SB winner - which is common sense since that's usually what people are trying to do - but since you have no chance of having the SB winner you've changed your stance to say that picking the loser is the same as picking the winner. Arguing pretty hard for that, so congrats if NE loses the SB. Good job!

First of all, there is no way I could have possibly "won" (have that in quotes because no scoring system was actually implemented and nothing is on the line). See the NFC picks.

Being that there is no actual prize to be awarded, we can laud people for correct picks. One guy, Tod, is half right about the Super Bowl. Genius. Pat him on back. Other guy, JWL, is half right. Throw mud on him. Dolt. Absolute moron of the highest order.

Reaser wrote:

King Kong wrote:Dude, you got a f'in problem with it then stop patting yourself on the back for picking Denver to lose last year.

Huh? I don't have a problem, I was pointing out and promoting the good picks EVERYONE made (8 people had at least one SB team correct, Rupert's # of playoff teams, etc) ...

Yes, I did pick Seattle to beat Denver last year, that's exact. Other people picked that, too. Not a big deal, as I've said, it's just for fun and it's interesting to see what everyone thought would happen.

I don't think it's a competition, but you are the one who proposed a 'scoring' system that would reward people for picking the SB winner - which is common sense since that's usually what people are trying to do - but since you have no chance of having the SB winner you've changed your stance to say that picking the loser is the same as picking the winner. Arguing pretty hard for that, so congrats if NE loses the SB. Good job!

First of all, there is no way I could have possibly "won" (have that in quotes because no scoring system was actually implemented and nothing is on the line). See the NFC picks.

Being that there is no actual prize to be awarded, we can laud people for correct picks. One guy, Tod, is half right about the Super Bowl. Genius. Pat him on back. Other guy, JWL, is half right. Throw mud on him. Dolt. Absolute moron of the highest order.

King Kong wrote:One guy, Tod, is half right about the Super Bowl. Genius. Pat him on back. Other guy, JWL, is half right. Throw mud on him. Dolt. Absolute moron of the highest order.

Wow. So since Bob said he thought Tod would be the winner and didn't give you enough attention in his post, you got this mad? Then you said you picking the SB loser (if NE loses) was "slightly better than the Tod Maher pick" (if Seattle wins) and since people haven't agreed with you you're continuing to complain this much?

Well I've said - a few times now - good job on picking NE to get to the Super Bowl. Not sure what else you're looking for, other than wanting people to say you're better than Tod Maher or something? Maybe others will tell you that so you can feel better?

It was just people making predictions, it isn't that important, ha.

Reaser wrote:

King Kong wrote:One guy, Tod, is half right about the Super Bowl. Genius. Pat him on back. Other guy, JWL, is half right. Throw mud on him. Dolt. Absolute moron of the highest order.

Wow. So since Bob said he thought Tod would be the winner and didn't give you enough attention in his post, you got this mad? Then you said you picking the SB loser (if NE loses) was "slightly better than the Tod Maher pick" (if Seattle wins) and since people haven't agreed with you you're continuing to complain this much?

Well I've said - a few times now - good job on picking NE to get to the Super Bowl. Not sure what else you're looking for, other than wanting people to say you're better than Tod Maher or something? Maybe others will tell you that so you can feel better?

It was just people making predictions, it isn't that important, ha.

A Sea-Ind preseason pick is virtually identical as a GB-NE pick but the latter was not worthy of a mention by whoever made the post (you wrote Bob). Both predictions are only half-right and not particularly worthy of praise anyway.

In the end, I got annoyed by the high horse BS that came from you after my initial post. Never wrote I am better than Tod. I am not looking for a better feeling. I try to be black and white as much as possible. Heck, I make a living where trying to be black and white is extremely important. No need to read into what my initial post was about. Again, I do not feel Sea-Ind is any better than GB-NE. If anything, GB-NE might be better because GB did not get blown out like Ind did.

Chicago-NE? Worse. Atlanta-NE? Worse. Seattle-Kansas City? Worse.

Mr. Kong, you may have climbed the Empire State Building in an earlier life but you need a little anatomical instruction in this age.

For your information, the object of your affliction here seems to be Reaser. He is a Seahawks fan.
Yes; we all know there is no such bird. The hawk of the sea is truly an osprey - better known as a sea eagle.

For your further information, neither the osprey, the eagle nor the hawk has fins.
So, your question of a fin problem is more than a tad nonsensical. But, we understand and are quite tolerant here.
The Miami Dolphins are affectionately known to some as the "Fins."

Perhaps your confusion lies with the fact that the original NFL Baltimore Colts was the former A-AFC Miami Seahawks.
Again, we understand; but still, although the Miami version might be a warm water bird, it does not have fins either.

So please, lay off the fin problem nonsense and lose your argument as a gentleman.

We do laud your defense of JWL. I remember him. He was a pretty nice guy - and rather bright too.
We shared a few messages about old Ang, the AFL guy, who we each missed.
The forum was a better place when JWL was around. Maybe he had difficulty making the crossover?
Maybe he was upset with the bored directors for their abuse of the By-laws?
Maybe he did not like the fact that everything here is no longer owned by the PFRA?
Whatever... in those matters, he had allies.
Try to do him proud with your defense and, while you are at it, why not leave your jerk and squirt garbage in the closet where it belongs.
Some of the Members may have wives and children who enjoy this site?

Better yet - why not run for president?
You would then have a functionary at your beck and call - an ED problem - who would be subject to your bidding and establish a contest any way you like.
Win - Lose! Lose -Win! What's the difference? You could have it your way...

No problem. I will cease to post here. Sorry for the problems.