Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Am I wrong in thinking MLB is our biggest weakness on defense?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Why do I need to show the play if you saw the game? 

Everybody else here knows what play I'm talking about. How is it that you don't?

You said Boston has a tendency to avoid contact.. This was my point about your criticism being off.. You have mentioned a play that shows him avoiding contact.. But have yet to show it.. I showed plays that prove this criticism of Boston is wrong.. I'm still waiting for you to prove this singular critique..

Atleast say the game.. poo is this that hard for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SOJA said:

I'll also add this Shaq has low key looked kinda bad this year. He's been very average. 

I don't think he's proving his contract but I also don't think he's been that bad... Shaq has made a few plays and at this point.. I don't really want to make sweeping judgment on anybody on the defense while they are playing a new scheme with no offseason with rookies every where and Whitehead as the MLB..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

You said Boston has a tendency to avoid contact.. This was my point about your criticism being off.. You have mentioned a play that shows him avoiding contact.. But have yet to show it.. I showed plays that prove this criticism of Boston is wrong.. I'm still waiting for you to prove this singular critique..

Atleast say the game.. poo is this that hard for you...

Again, I'm not looking for highlights because I watched the game. And also again, everyone else knows what play I'm referring to. You're the only one who says he needs to see it.

All of us who've actually seen the games this season have seen numerous examples of Boston either avoiding contact or just outright whiffing (probably more of that, not that it makes things any better).

Talk to me when you can name a play in a game you actually watched rather than googling highlights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Again, I'm not looking for highlights because I watched the game. And also again, everyone else knows what play I'm referring to. You're the only one who says he needs to see it.

All of us who've actually seen the games this season have seen numerous examples of Boston either avoiding contact or just outright whiffing (probably more of that, not that it makes things any better).

Talk to me when you can name a play in a game you actually watched rather than googling highlights.

Cool classic Scott.. Makes a point he's not willing to backup.. Changes the debate multiple times.. Uses and depends on his forum minions to back him up ... Got it... Same playbook same obnoxious prick...lmao..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WOW!! said:

Cool classic Scott.. Makes a point he's not willing to backup.. Changes the debate multiple times.. Uses and depends on his forum minions to back him up ... Got it... Same playbook same obnoxious prick...lmao..

Uhhh, no. I've said the same thing multiple times.

You've made it painfully obvious you didn't watch the game, yet you're trying to defend how a player played using highlights.

It's goofy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Uhhh, no. I've said the same thing multiple times.

You've made it painfully obvious you didn't watch the game, yet you're trying to defend how a player played using highlights.

It's goofy.

You won't even name the play or the game.. Just keep saying "everybody knows the play" you should know it if you watched the game" followed by dumb ass guy name Tipper douchebag the third laugh... 

No that's fuging goofy... But again classic Scott..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...