Seahawks 07-08

Jarori Bloodletter · Post by **Jarori Bloodletter** » August 9, 2007, 4:30 pm

Can we take it all the way?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 9, 2007, 4:37 pm

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 9, 2007, 4:46 pm

Not a chance.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2007, 5:58 pm

They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » August 9, 2007, 6:01 pm

Winnow wrote:They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.

They do have the easiest schedule in the NFL this year.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 9, 2007, 8:21 pm

Winnow wrote:They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.

I would take a bet that the 9ers end up ahead of the cards. 1 month Avatar?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2007, 8:27 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Winnow wrote:They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.
I would take a bet that the 9ers end up ahead of the cards. 1 month Avatar?

Haven't the Cardinals swept the 49'ers the past two years?

2006 Cardinals record vs 49ers:

Win Home 34-27
Win at SF 26-20

2005 Cardinals record vs 49ers:

Win Home 31-14
Win at SF 17-10

Book it! I'll take that bet!

Waran · Post by **Waran** » August 9, 2007, 9:44 pm

No, the Seahawks are destined choke artists

I'm staying way the hell away from Edgerrin James this year in Fantasy Football. What a waste of a keeper pick

Go Rams!

There's some glimmer of hope this year, only can go up from last year.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 9, 2007, 11:06 pm

Tough call as far as the division winner in the NFC West. All have made improvements over last season or via offseason acquisition. The 'Gulls have the best team on paper I think though. However, I can't see any of them making it past the first round of the playoffs (NFC still have playoffs or do they just draw from a hat?).

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2007, 8:45 am

The NFC players send one representative each to have a pillow fight.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » August 10, 2007, 11:32 am

Browns > Bengals this years.

yep

Jarori Bloodletter · Post by **Jarori Bloodletter** » August 10, 2007, 2:13 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Not a chance.

Bears fan then? or Packers =)

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 10, 2007, 4:23 pm

Winnow wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Winnow wrote:They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.
I would take a bet that the 9ers end up ahead of the cards. 1 month Avatar?
Haven't the Cardinals swept the 49'ers the past two years?

2006 Cardinals record vs 49ers:

Win Home 34-27
Win at SF 26-20

2005 Cardinals record vs 49ers:

Win Home 31-14
Win at SF 17-10

Book it! I'll take that bet!

We are talking final standings here, tiebreakers follow normal NFL rules, you are going to have a Spurs Avatar dude, brace yourself.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 10, 2007, 5:56 pm

Jarori Bloodletter wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:Not a chance.
Bears fan then? or Packers =)

Most definitly a Packers fan. Bears will fail this year as well. Grossman will lead them back down to the bottom where they belong. I used to be a big fan of all the bird teams like Cards, Falcons, Seahawks, and Eagles but they have all disappointed me so much that I would rather see them lose.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2007, 5:59 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:We are talking final standings here, tiebreakers follow normal NFL rules, you are going to have a Spurs Avatar dude, brace yourself.

Good one

miir · Post by **miir** » August 11, 2007, 12:53 am

Jarori Bloodletter wrote:Can we take it all the way?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 11, 2007, 11:00 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The NFC players send one representative each to have a pillow fight.

Always an exciting January for NFC teams, players and fans. It also adds an extra dimension to the now defunct tickle-fights of recent years.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 11, 2007, 12:06 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Browns > Bengals this years.

yep

Thats not much of a prediction when half the Bangals roster will be in police custody!

And is that with or without Captain Holdout the QB making the cut?

(yeah I know he's signed now but I thought the cold shoulder the coaches were giving him in the media was pretty funny... bet the Raider "nation" wishes Russel would get his deal done too)

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 11, 2007, 12:21 pm

Well, the Raiders weren't planning on using Russell right away, or that is what they are saying. However, if he does sign before the season, he will be in by week 5....I mean hell, 0-4--can't get any worse!

As far as Quinn, well, we'll see how well he catches up. Dude is a quality QB and smart--the Browns may lose a few games getting him adjusted, but he will be fine.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 12, 2007, 5:56 am

The Raiders have a rejuvinated Daunte Culpepper to start for them, Russell can sit his ass in the bayou spongin off his agent for all they care.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 12, 2007, 6:19 am

masteen wrote:The Raiders have a rejuvinated Daunte Culpepper to start for them, Russell can sit his ass in the bayou spongin off his agent for all they care.

Watched the Cardinals/Raiders game tonight.

Culpepeper had one good deep throw but otherwise had shitty stats for the night.

The two Michigan players Gabe Watson and Alan Branch looked good tonight. Branch caused and recovered a fumble (I think)

Neil Rackers is back to his old form. He kicked a 59 yard field goal right before halftime.

Leinart was so so. K. Warner had a nice pass.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 14, 2007, 3:21 am

Man, they aren't even going to let me get my hopes up before the first game of the season.

The Arizona Cardinals and first-year coach Ken Whisenhunt could be forced to play the entire 2007 season without a pair of starters if the injuries suffered by offensive tackle Oliver Ross and linebacker Chike Okeafor are as severe as early signs indicate.

Down For The Count?

The Cardinals suffered the biggest injury blows of the weekend, and it may be hard for them to recover because this isn't a deep team, John Clayton writes in Quick Hits. Blog Insider

Follow-up examinations of both players on Sunday showed that Okeafor suffered a torn left biceps and Ross a torn left triceps during Saturday night's preseason loss at Oakland. The injuries were reported by the Arizona Republic and by the team's Web site, and confirmed by sources close to both the starters.

The players are likely to seek second opinions. But if surgery is required, which is typically the case with biceps and triceps tears, they would probably miss the season. Their absences would be a huge blow to a franchise that has suffered through five straight years of double-digit losses, but was felt to be much improved in 2007.

At this rate the Cardinals will be down 8 starters before the first regular season game kicks off.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 15, 2007, 11:33 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Winnow wrote:They won't even win the NFC West. The Cardinals will take the division.
I would take a bet that the 9ers end up ahead of the cards. 1 month Avatar?

I just pwnd the 49's 52-3 in Madden 08

Leinart 371 yrds, 4 TDs.

Yeah baby!

Fitz 122 yrds, 1 TD
Boldin 96 yrds
B.Johnson 52 yrds, 1 TD
Pope 81 yrds, 2 TD (he must be ready to emerge as a dominant TE this year!)

Held Gore to 17 yrds rushing!
Edge sucked as usual with 41 yrds. I couldn't figure out how to replace him with Shipp.

S.F. is in for a spanking week 1!

Jarori Bloodletter · Post by **Jarori Bloodletter** » August 17, 2007, 3:13 pm

Seahawks at Packers
August 18 • 5:00PM

I see The hawks over by 3

Its going be a great Season.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 20, 2007, 9:43 am

Jarori Bloodletter wrote:Seahawks at Packers
August 18 • 5:00PM

I see The hawks over by 3

Its going be a great Season.

48-13 I think you are right. It will be a great season.

Jarori Bloodletter · Post by **Jarori Bloodletter** » August 20, 2007, 3:44 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:
Jarori Bloodletter wrote:Seahawks at Packers
August 18 • 5:00PM

I see The hawks over by 3

Its going be a great Season.
48-13 I think you are right. It will be a great season.

LOL damn it was hidious but. its Preseason =)

Notes: Packers defensive end Cullen Jenkins had a sack and two tackles for loss in the first quarter. ... Bubba Franks, who has been working as the Packers' No. 2 tight end after the worst season of his career, caught four passes for 30 yards. ... Three Seahawks players were called for holding on a kickoff return late in the second quarter: Michael Boulware, Deon Grant and Omowale Dada. ... The Packers' usually lethargic return game got a jolt from second-year player Will Blackmon, who ran a kickoff back 83 yards in the first quarter to set up Jackson's touchdown. ... Packers WR Shaun Bodiford, FB Ryan Powdrell and defensive lineman Michael Montgomery all left the game with medial collateral ligament injuries. McCarthy said all four players would be out "at least a couple weeks."

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 11, 2007, 12:08 pm

I am thinking a nice picture of Ginobli and Bowen arm in arm for your avatar Winnow

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » September 11, 2007, 12:22 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:I am thinking a nice picture of Ginobli and Bowen arm in arm for your avatar Winnow

Or maybe this?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2007, 12:50 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:I am thinking a nice picture of Ginobli and Bowen arm in arm for your avatar Winnow

The 49'ers looked horrible so I can only assume that the Cardinals are the worst team in football this year.

Neither team really deserved to win that game...well neither offense.

Green just had to fall on the ball in the end zone!

After getting swept by the Cardinals the past two years, I should have known S.F. would treat this like their superbowl.

What's with the 49'er coach? He looks retarded dressed like he's heading to a wedding on the sidelines.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 11, 2007, 1:51 pm

Winnow wrote:What's with the 49'er coach? He looks retarded dressed like he's heading to a wedding on the sidelines.

Fucking christ Winnow. You made this post less than seven hours prior:

Winnow wrote:One of my dad's best friends, extremely successful in life, looked like he dressed by picking through clothes at a garbage dump. He was one of the best humans on the planet before he passed away. If people aren't going to look past appearance, fuck'em.

So:

Dressing like you just walked out of a garbage dump: A-OK, fuck anyone who can't look past your apperance
Dressing professionally in an attempt to pay respects to your father and the NFL: Chump should've worn sweats, I could never look past THAT heinous fucking appearance

Your posts would be less irritating if you made even a token attempt to make sense.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2007, 2:09 pm

Sueven wrote: Dressing professionally in an attempt to pay respects to your father and the NFL: Chump should've worn sweats, I could never look past THAT heinous fucking appearance

Your posts would be less irritating if you made even a token attempt to make sense.

He's a coach, not an owner. He can wear whatever he wants but Bill Belichick does pretty well wearing a hoody. It looks out of place on the sidelines of a football game. It doesn't bother me enough to lose sleep over it.

If he was wearing it to honor something I wasn't aware of and it's a one time deal, it makes more sense. Good for him.

It's not practical attire. Suits are never practical attire but especially so on the sidelines of sporting events. I don't care if NBA coaches wear suits as well. It's a bad idea for them to wear suits as well.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 11, 2007, 2:20 pm

It's not practical attire. Suits are never practical attire but especially so on the sidelines of sporting events. I don't care if NBA coaches wear suits as well. It's a bad idea for them to wear suits as well.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

right, he shouldn't wear a suit because it's not 'practical.' because wearing a suit prevents him from doing the job of coaching a football game. how the FUCK is it a 'bad idea' to wear a suit on the sidelines? the suit ruins your ability to decide what substitutions to make? maybe it would be a bad idea for a football PLAYER to wear a suit...

unless you're wearing clothing soaked in corrosive acid or some shit, there is just no way that making one reasonable fashion choice over another has any bearing on 'practicality' or is a 'bad idea' in the context of football coaching.

vince lombardi and tom landry seemed to do just fine.

seriously, this is totally retarded. it's not a one time thing. he wears the suit to honor his father (previous 49er's coach dick nolan) and to display respect for the nfl generally.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » September 11, 2007, 2:31 pm

All of my coaches, from Junior High through College, wore suits to our games.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2007, 2:37 pm

I didn't say it had an impact on his ability to coach. I thought Landry and Lombardi looked retarded as well wearing suits on the sidelines although back then, choice in clothing was generally poor all around for comfort.

I'm not sure why you have such an issue with it. I can't stand businessmen in suits much less people at sporting events. I wouldn't base my hiring decision on his attire and if he told me he wore it out of respect for something or another, I'd be fine with it. I think it looks out of place. You can refer to Landry and Lombardi all you want. There were a lot of people that dressed impractical back in the day.

Bottom line: The dude can dress however he wants, unlike in the NBA. He does seem rather lifeless compared to other coaches in the NFL that actually walk around the sidelines so maybe a suit is OK for his immobile coaching style.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 11, 2007, 3:23 pm

Nothing is better than a shirt, tie, and a sweatervest when manning the sidelines.

On topic, thank you Seattle for taking Charlie Frye off of our hands.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » September 11, 2007, 3:51 pm

Quite a few things here Winnow:

1.

Winnow wrote:I didn't say it had an impact on his ability to coach. I thought Landry and Lombardi looked retarded as well wearing suits on the sidelines although back then, choice in clothing was generally poor all around for comfort.

Your implication that suits are uncomfortable: I don't know if you buy cheap, non-fitted suits, but of the two I have owned in my life (so clearly they are used very rarely, and I have not purchased very high quality ones) are some of the most comfortable clothing items i have ever worn.

2.

Winnow wrote:I'm not sure why you have such an issue with it. I can't stand businessmen in suits much less people at sporting events. I wouldn't base my hiring decision on his attire and if he told me he wore it out of respect for something or another, I'd be fine with it. I think it looks out of place. You can refer to Landry and Lombardi all you want. There were a lot of people that dressed impractical back in the day.

You can't stand businessmen in suits, much less people in suits at sporting events, yet "if people aren't going to look post appearance, fuck'em." So you can't look past appearances in order to be able to stand these people?

Why does it look out of place?, because you have only watched football in the past 10 years, when the contract with Reebok required everyone on the team wear team apparel?

Mike Nolan has gone on a three year campaign in order to be allowed to wear his suit to go along with the long standing tradition in the NFL, and more importantly to honor his father. Last year he was allowed to wear suits (made by Reebok) at two of his home games, and this year he can wear them at all of his home games (so only 8 games out of the year).

This kind of goes along with #1, but why are suits impractical? or rather, why are suits less practical than a cut off hoodie? In my opinion, the outfits NBA players wore before the dress code were much more impractical than a suit (not to imply I care what they wear/whether you should dress practically)

3.

Winnow wrote:Bottom line: The dude can dress however he wants, unlike in the NBA. He does seem rather lifeless compared to other coaches in the NFL that actually walk around the sidelines so maybe a suit is OK for his immobile coaching style.

I'm beginning to think that you don't actually watch football, and only read about anything dealing with the Cardinals.

Mike Nolan was at least as active as Ken Whisenhunt last night. And to name a few coaches who are about as active: Andy Reid, Marvin Lewis, Bill Belichick, Tony Dungy, Jack Del Rio, Cam Cameron, Eric Mangini, Mike Tomlin, Norv Turner, Lovie Smith, Wade Phillips, Herman Edwards, Sean Payton, Joe Gibbs, Brian Billick, and Mike Holmgren.

Edit: those coaches were off the top of my head, and were chosen based off of how I remember them acting during games.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 11, 2007, 4:52 pm

I'm not a fan of wearing a suit and tie (I don't care how well made it is, I always somewhat feel constricted with a tie) but insofar as athletes and coaches are concerned I think it makes sense in the aspect of them presenting a respectable public appearance and giving some positive reinforcement to the fact they are role models. Its one thing I think the NHL, for all its flaws, has done right: players showing up at the rink before a game, injured/scratched guys in the pressbox, coaching staff behind the bench are all required to "dress up for the public". I don't think it really has any impact on a person's ability to perform or not but it presents an amtosphere of seriousness, of gravity to the situation, which we as paying fans expect of professional athletes and coaches.

As for the games a couple thoughts on Week 1:

- damn the Colts D looked good against the Saints
- tough break for the Bills, first on losing Everett like that and then on losing the game to add insult to injury
- the Ravens got screwed on the "offensive intereference" call on Todd Heap's TD catch
- damn the Patriots looked good (how long will Moss stay interested?)
- where are they hiding the real Ladainian Tomlinson? And Rivers was right to be choked about that offisde that wasn't called and caused a bad snap/fumble
- being a QB in New York looks like an extreme risk profession these days (felt bad for both of them to be playing well and getting taken out)
- OK the Lions put up pts against Oakland, how will they fare against a team thats good on both sides of the ball?
- Joey Harrington still sucks but can take a hit (6 sacks... is he that slow or his O-line that bad?)
- are the Browns the real reason people in Ohio care more about college football than the NFL? Can't say I blame em
- will Jeff Garcia ever get any respect?
- there should be no point ties allowed for games like the Cardinals-49ers and Packers-Eagles where neither team deserves a win and 2 pts go to the team that sucks less/is a little luckier

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2007, 4:56 pm

Aardor wrote:
Mike Nolan was at least as active as Ken Whisenhunt last night.

I meant physically active. I saw him move once when a ref was blocking his view.

I'm not questioning his ability to coach. Before I was attacked on this thread, I asked, "What's with the 49'er coach? He looks retarded dressed like he's heading to a wedding on the sidelines." He'd look great at a funeral or wedding reception. I was wondering what he was doing wearing a GQ suit at a football game. He should wear one of those old school wigs that prominent people wore in the 1700's.

Here's your new coach's attire:

And the cheerleaders should be wearing something like this:

It wasn't that big a deal. I merely asked why he looked the way he did and Sueven sort of answered the question. I guess I missed the whole "battle to be uncomfortable" war waged by him. I agree that you should be able to wear whatever you want, short of blatant advertising, on the sidelines.

I'll never be impressed by a suit. The richest people in the world don't wear them. Gates, Jobs, Cuban, etc. They managed billion dollar companies without wearing a suit. Amazing! Bet they were more comfortable as well.

As much as I hate Apple, I respect Jobs and the management for letting their employees wear whatever they want, unlike big blue (IBM) that forced their employees to wear...suits!

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » September 11, 2007, 5:18 pm

Winnow wrote:
Aardor wrote:
Mike Nolan was at least as active as Ken Whisenhunt last night.
I meant physically active. I saw him move once when a ref was blocking his view.

I'm not questioning his ability to coach. Before I was attacked on this thread, I asked, "What's with the 49'er coach? He looks retarded dressed like he's heading to a wedding on the sidelines." He'd look great at a funeral or wedding reception. I was wondering what he was doing wearing a GQ suit at a football game. He should wear one of those old school wigs that prominent people wore in the 1700's.

Here's your new coach's attire:

And the cheerleaders should be wearing something like this:

It wasn't that big a deal. I merely asked why he looked the way he did and Sueven sort of answered the question. I guess I missed the whole "battle to be uncomfortable" war waged by him. I agree that you should be able to wear whatever you want, short of blatant advertising, on the sidelines.

Oh, I definitely meant physically active (well, assuming we mean moving around, being excited during good plays, etc). Also, please reread my post:

It's not "new" coaches attire, he's wearing a suit made by a sports company, I very specifically answered why he was dressed the way he was, suits aren't uncomfortable (i rock jeans and a tshirt, or jeans, tshirt and hoodie during the winter, so it's not like classy clothes are my particular norm for dressing).

Seriously Winnow, I was not trying to attack you, just to inform you on the suit situation in the NFL. Sueven was a little condescending in his post, but it's probably due to the fact that lately you seem to act like an idiot on purpose, then ignore someones post when they rightfully correct you. You are starting to make me dislike two teams (suns, cardinals) who are FULL of players whose careers I follow very closely (nash, diaw, marion, stoudemire, strawberry, james, fitzgerald, boldin) for that very reason (and specifically your posts about those teams which follow under the above post description).

(i think i use parenthesis way too much)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2007, 5:45 pm

(you should never let the comments of a poster on a thread cause you to dislike a team)

If it was hat easy, I'd start hyping suits in all of my posts.

My comments about the NBA becoming an emotionless, boring product are well documented on this board. Forcing players and coaches to wear suits helps absolutely nothing. It's the sign of a business in trouble for sure though. I've been in more than one company that, when things are down, all the sudden implements a stricter dress code...somehow forgetting that the most productive years in the company had the loosest dress codes...it's completely retarded, to overuse the word, and a sign that management has no clue what to do to actually rectify things. Even worse for sports franchises, is being so greedy that you force players to wear shoes and clothes (I don't mean the official uniform) that they don't prefer using in order to make another buck.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 11, 2007, 5:49 pm

If he wants to wear a suit, let him wear a suit! Jack Del Rio wore a suit too!

*added*
I found this on wiki:

The Suit
Del Rio became the second NFL head coach to wear a suit on the sidelines since 1993 during a November 20, 2006 regular season contest against the New York Giants, immediately following San Francisco 49ers head coach Mike Nolan who had sported the look the previous day in a win over the Seattle Seahawks.

Del Rio's Jaguars won that game by a score of 26-10. Previously, a sponsorship deal between the NFL and Reebok prohibited coaches from wearing anything but Reebok clothing, but a series of events -- including Nolan petitioning for permission to wear a suit and Reebok planning to unveil a formal line of clothing in 2007 -- led to the NFL adopting a rule that permits coaches to wear a suit two times a year.[1]

Del Rio wore a suit again during a December 10, 2006 win over the Indianapolis Colts. The score in that game was 44-17.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » September 11, 2007, 6:04 pm

Winnow wrote:(you should never let the comments of a poster on a thread cause you to dislike a team)

If it was hat easy, I'd start hyping suits in all of my posts.

My comments about the NBA becoming an emotionless, boring product are well documented on this board. Forcing players and coaches to wear suits helps absolutely nothing. It's the sign of a business in trouble for sure though. I've been in more than one company that, when things are down, all the sudden implements a stricter dress code...somehow forgetting that the most productive years in the company had the loosest dress codes...it's completely retarded, to overuse the word, and a sign that management has no clue what to do to actually rectify things. Even worse for sports franchises, is being so greedy that you force players to wear shoes and clothes (I don't mean the official uniform) that they don't prefer using in order to make another buck.

I agree almost entirely with your post. My comment wasn't very serious, just your posts of late have been annoying me.

But isn't the NFL doing the same thing by forcing players/coaches/staff to only wear team advertising attire? isn't having the option to wear a suit better than not having the option?

And wow, I didn't realize the ban on non-Reebok attire happened in 1993, I figured it was the early 80's.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » September 11, 2007, 8:45 pm

If I were to go all up-in-arms about anything, it would be that damn Reebok/NFL arrangement.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 11, 2007, 10:12 pm

Mike Nolan is one of the hardest nosed coaches in the league... a total throwback to when the coach ran the team. The 9ers are damn lucky to have him coaching their team, the turnaround in the past 2 years is stunning.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 12, 2007, 1:22 am

Winnow wrote:It wasn't that big a deal. I merely asked why he looked the way he did and Sueven sort of answered the question. I guess I missed the whole "battle to be uncomfortable" war waged by him.

Aardor wrote:Sueven was a little condescending in his post

I would describe my behavior in this thread as very condescending.

I don't know what the fuck a "battle to be uncomfortable" is, I was just pointing out how god damn retarded it is to make a post saying "fuck the haters, wear what you want, don't let the man keep you down, you should wear whatever you want regardless of what anyone else thinks," followed shortly thereafter by a post criticizing someone's fashion choices. Seriously, if you can't see why that deserves to be mocked, then I don't know what else to say to you.

Further, you directly implied that a coach wearing a suit harms their ability to coach effectively. This was implied via your paired statements that suits are not "practical attire" for football coaches and "it's a bad idea" for coaches to wear suits. If you meant something else by these statements, fuck you. I interpreted them logically; if you expect people to understand what you say, then write coherently. I guess you could just be making a really, really harsh aesthetic judgment, which would conflict even more strongly with your "fuck anyone who can't look past appearances" position.

Your comments about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Mark Cuban are blatantly irrelevant. Who the fuck cares? I'm not debating corporate dress codes here, I'm taking an easy opportunity to mock your inconsistency.

Beyond that, I'm with Aardor.

And to re-rail, after last week I think that the Seahawks definitely have a solid chance to win the NFC. The Saints, Eagles and Bears seem comparably good, although some more bad performances could kill the Saints and Eagles. Beyond the Cowboys, I don't know if there's anyone in the NFC who has the talent to stick with those 4 teams. Maybe someone will pull it together, but the Hawks should have as good a shot as anyone.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 12, 2007, 2:33 am

Take a good look at the sidelines of a football field:

Dangerous!

Those can't be real!

This guy has a tie on but at least he's got some decent shoes on!

Fanny packs, shorts, sneakers...good idea!

It's fucking grass! What the fuck sense does it make to wear a suit with no traction shoes on a sideline where huge men come barreling into you at unpredictable times? Give yourself a chance to get out of the way with some sports shoes and wear something that's meant to be in an environment where you're not sitting on your ass at a table.

I'm not questioning his ability to coach. I'm most definitely saying it's retarded to wear a suit on the sidelines of a football field during a game.

This has nothing to do with my comment on the other thread about not impressing people with fancy attire at reunion. You can amuse yourself thinking you've pointed out some sort of major contradiction of mine if you wish. It's not practical to wear a suit in a place where you're bound to be dodging shit flying off the field at one point or another, and crappy weather, muddy sidelines, etc.

Pete Carroll, best coach in college....comfy!

Bill Belichick, best coach in the NFL....comfy!

Not practical! Doesn't look right! Bad! Secret Service? WFT is that? So very out of place.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 12, 2007, 8:04 am

Winnow wrote:Bill Belichick, best coach in the NFL....comfy!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677

Sources: Goodell determines Pats broke rules by taping Jets' signals
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN
(Archive)
Updated: September 11, 2007, 10:07 PM ET
Comment
Email
Print
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the New England Patriots violated league rules Sunday when they videotaped defensive signals by the New York Jets' coaches, according to league sources.

NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Sources say the visual evidence confirmed the suspicion.

Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including the possibility of docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks" because it is the competitive violation in the wake of a stern warning to all teams since he became commissioner, the sources said. The Patriots have been suspected in previous incidents.

The Patriots will be allowed an opportunity to present their case by Friday, sources said, most likely via the telephone.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said on Tuesday that no official decision has been made and that the club has not been notified.

The league also was reviewing a possible violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during Sunday's game, sources said. The team did not have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game.

Goodell is expected to have a decision no later than Friday but that is not set in stone.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft was asked when he expected a verdict, but said those questions had to be directed toward Goodell.

"There is an investigation going on now, and perhaps an adjudication of it, and I think it would be inappropriate at this time to make any comment," Kraft told reporters at a charity appearance Tuesday. "When you're successful in anything, a lot of people like to try to take you down and do different things. We understand that.

"We worked very hard to try to put an organization together that we all could be proud of in New England, and we're very proud of the New England Patriots organization and the record that they've established over the last 13 seasons and one game."

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 12, 2007, 12:10 pm

Who cares so long as they win?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » September 12, 2007, 12:29 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Who cares so long as they win?

Perhaps because maybe they might have won by not playing fair? Seems like a good reason to care.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 12, 2007, 1:01 pm

Sorry I should have clarified. I meant about what they are wearing.