Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

define a newbie


cdj7k
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do not know skins

 

 

You have just defined newbie.

 

 

But, now that you have been introduced to him, your progression from newbie to momo fektard has begun. After a couple of months at this level, you will either become a Huddler or just a fektard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm in the minority, but as long as someone is willing to back up whatever argument s/he is making and keep things above the belt, I have no problem with them no matter their post count.

 

Of course, someone I've "known" for awhile on the board deciding to be an ass hole will get a bit more rope to hang themselves with than somebody with 100 posts. People with low post counts should also be very selective in their use of sarcasm.

 

I recall going about 30 rounds with BigScore on the Raiders last year - Norv Turner's passing offense, LaMont Jordan, etc - both of us backing up our positions with all sorts of numbers and never taking a legitimate difference of opinion personally, and it increased my respect for the guy, even though he was totally wrong. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall going about 30 rounds with BigScore on the Raiders last year - Norv Turner's passing offense, LaMont Jordan, etc - both of us backing up our positions with all sorts of numbers and never taking a legitimate difference of opinion personally, and it increased my respect for the guy, even though he was totally wrong. :D

 

Exsqueeze me Chavez?

 

I was totally wrong? :D

 

I just about nailed his rushing yards to a T and only missed his total TD's by 2.

I see Jordan with right around a 1,000 yds rushing and 7 to 9 TD's total.

My .02..........for what it's worth. :D

 

 

 

Lamont Jordan Rushing			+--------------------------+			 |		  Rushing		 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards	Y/A   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+| 2005 oak |  14 |   272   1025	3.8	9 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+

 

 

Blew it big time on his recieving numbers though. :D

maybe another 200 yds in the passing game

Of course NOBODY projected the receiving numbers Jordan ended up with. And I mean nobody!

 

 

Lamont Jordan Recieving			 +-------------------------+			 |		Receiving		|+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 2005 oak |  14 |	70	563   8.0	2 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+ 

 

Link to my post that the above quotes are pulled from

 

I also told both you and DMD (in the now infamous Porter ~ vs ~ Burleson thread) that I figured Norv would produce a pair of 1,000 yard receivers with Moss & Porter.

 

Misssed that by that projection by only 58 yards.

 

Also told you the Raiders D would suck...and boy did they suck.

 

Tell you what, if that's being wrong, then I can only hope to be soooo wrong more often...ya Newbie Tool! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, if that's being wrong, then I can only hope to be soooo wrong more often...ya Newbie Tool! :D

 

 

Actually, to be correct, Chavez has been around long enough that he is at momo fektard level. Some may say he has actually progressed to just plain fektard, but that is debateable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, to be correct, Chavez has been around long enough that he is at momo fektard level. Some may say he has actually progressed to just plain fektard, but that is debateable.

 

Oh! My bad. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exsqueeze me Chavez?

 

I was totally wrong? :D

 

I just about nailed his rushing yards to a T and only missed his total TD's by 2.

 

Lamont Jordan Rushing			+--------------------------+			 |		  Rushing		 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards	Y/A   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+| 2005 oak |  14 |   272   1025	3.8	9 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+

 

 

Blew it big time on his recieving numbers though. :D

 

Of course NOBODY projected the receiving numbers Jordan ended up with. And I mean nobody!

 

 

Lamont Jordan Recieving			 +-------------------------+			 |		Receiving		|+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 2005 oak |  14 |	70	563   8.0	2 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+ 

 

Link to my post that the above quotes are pulled from

 

I also told both you and DMD (in the now infamous Porter ~ vs ~ Burleson thread) that I figured Norv would produce a pair of 1,000 yard receivers with Moss & Porter.

 

Misssed that by that projection by only 58 yards.

 

Also told you the Raiders D would suck...and boy did they suck.

 

Tell you what, if that's being wrong, then I can only hope to be soooo wrong more often...ya Newbie Tool! :D

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should give yourself at least 5 for overreacting despite the presence of a :D icon.

 

:D

Hey, there I was all proud of my call on Lamont Jordan and shiznit...

...then you go and rain on my parade...even with the :D icon.

 

I guess a 5 yard overreaction :D is in order, even though I ended my own post with a :D icon.

 

Truce? :D

 

Unitl our next debate that is! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information