NY vs Chicago Grudge Match Update

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:16 am

This question's answer all depends upon who the QB is next season.

RI WORKHORSE · Post by **RI WORKHORSE** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:10 am

Could be culpepper in arizona this year?with edgerrin james?As for the super bowl I have to say the same thing, the ref's should of had a black and gold on.Every time seattle got down there they took them out with weak holding calls.Diesel how about a round 3 with all the wr's and te's?

johnny

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:32 am

Culpepper without Moss last year, *even when Culpepper was healthy, looked like a Peanut Butter and Ketchup sandwich. Something just wasn't right. So even though Edge may help out that offense in Arizona, I'm not sold on Culpepper until I see anything different.

And speaking of TE's...Where was Heath Miller? This guy was a solid end zone threat this year, and looked like a spectator on the field yesterday.

I'll do a hypothetical 3rd round later on tonight...I'm sure somebody will find a player that I've missed somewhere down the line...

Who should I go with in round 3 after getting Elam and Chicago's defense in the first 2 rounds? Should I go TE, or QB?

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:08 am

I was wondering why referee Bill Levee didn't get the MVP award because he and his crew were the only thing stopping the Seattle offense besides "board-hands" Stevens.

As for Culpepper, I don't think he is going to end up in AZ this year as they are talking to Warner. Looks like Josh McCown could be the odd man out there. Edge would be a nice fit in NE if they decide to dump Dillon as it seems now that he's won a Super Bowl ring his mouth is starting to overload his brain again and he is definitely starting to show his age with the injuries. And Edge signing with NE would certainly be his style for sticking it to Peyton and Indy.

As for your 3rd round pick, I'm thinking Pennington or Favre, assuming he retires.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:32 pm

There you go again Snake! So much for your mutual respect and "no more digs" (or are you going to deny you said that too??)

- I said the Darrell Jackson P.I call was bad.

- I honestly don't think there was enough to overturn "Big Ben's" TD.

- The "phantom holding call" has been called on the EXACT same situation in many other games. When it happens in the Super Bowl, it just gets seen A LOT more.

- Last night's game WAS NOT a well officiated game. However, I hope you honestly don't think the refs handed the Steelers the game? The Seahawks didn't play well, were outcoached, and DID NOT make the plays when they needed to (on offense or defense).

You saying I have a perception problem is like an alcoholic telling someone they have a drinking problem!

RI WORKHORSE · Post by **RI WORKHORSE** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:17 pm

Im a miami dolphins fan so I will take culpepper in miami.Ill take anything.The dolphins just got to get a qb this year.We should of got bledsoe last year.I would love to see edge go to new england.Back to the super bowl.The seahawks were throwing all over them.The only thing that pittsburgh earned was the will parker run.Ref's kept them in the game and seattle died.As for the big ben td,should of never been called a Td.That close should of been no td called.But oh yeah they were playing in pittsburgh aka detroit.Well the ref's got to make money some how.

johnny

BLACKHAND · Post by **BLACKHAND** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:39 pm

i can live with the djax call. i can live with the big ben td call. what makes me sick is the phantom holding call which totally changed the game. the seahawks would have taken the lead and pitt would have been in trouble. then to top it off the blocking below the waist call set pitt up with great field position......YES , I TOOK THE SEAHAWKS.

SIGNED ,
THE GUY MAKING A DEPOSIT TO THE BOOKIE

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:39 pm

Originally posted by RI WORKHORSE:
As for the big ben td,should of never been called a Td.That close should of been no td called. I agree Johnny. If it had NOT been called a TD, and had been challenged, there is no way they would have called it one. However, the fact that they called it one, was the reason there wasn't "indisputable" evidence to overturn it.