frostybanana's forum posts

#1 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
I avoid all physical contact with my mom. So no.
#2 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
I have and annoying family and no rent. Except my parents are moving out and it'll just be me and my brother for the time being. If I didn't know my parents were moving out though I'd probably find another place.
#3 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
1. Sam Bradford 2. Phillip Rivers 3. Ryan Mallett 4. Aaron Rodgers 5. Josh Freeman I love Colt McCoy too.
#4 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -

a

Something like that.

BranKetra

A giant burger AND an Asian woman?

#5 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"] How much is he making right now? I thought it was like 2 million or something around there?ExoticAnimal

According to the link, his salary going into this season is only $800k.

Perhaps he got some bonuses or something cuz i remember reading another article a while back saying that he made 2 million. I'll have to try and find it.

That's true and not true. The Titans moved the escalators from the end of Johnson's contract to his 2010 salary to raise it from 550k to about 2 million instead of giving him a new contract. From the player's perspective, that's BS because Johnson's 2000 yard season could easily be the best year of his career and he should've been compensated for it. On the other hand, he made about 4 million in bonuses his first few years because of his performance. This year his base salary is 960,000. It's highly likely that includes several performance based bonuses, so he COULD make 2 million. CJ wants a contract that has 30-40 million GUARANTEED. This is where I have to side with management. That's is FAR too much for a running back. That is not the total contract, that is just the guaranteed money. So he's looking for a 5-6 year, 60-80 million dollar deal with 30-40 million guaranteed. Runningbacks are prone to getting injured, especially backs who carry the load like CJ. If CJ gets the max deal, that'll put the Titans in at 16 million a season for his services. Is that really worth it? If he gets that kind of contract, Peterson is in for HUGE payday as well.
#6 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@frosty your posts 100% contradict one another in some cases you say 'look at last year'...like with seattle in some cases you say ignore last...like with Denver make up your mind. are we going off last year or not :? as you said "No logic there, at all." There is no way you can defend both sides. So either you think Seattle is worse or Denver...you have to choose I think both are worse, but your line of thinking creates a scenario where you have to choose one Now onto what you said 1. You think Pete Carrol did a good job coaching and assembling the seahawks...really??? It has been quite some time since I have seen a coach f*** up a team that badly (from WR and RB and QB moves to in season coaching)...one good playoff game where the other team did not take them seriously does not a good coach make. Take away Hasselback (who is not good), insert even worse T Jack, lose some players = worse team 2. 49ers...there is a hiue difference in QB and WR play. This league is all about QB, WR, and getting to the QB...the Lions are better Name the last great back to win a SB (that was still worth a damn when they won). Backs just don't matter like they used to. 3. Titans ...now they just lost a corner to holdout So their QB play sucks, D got worse, TE got worse, and CJ is on the downswing (unless you want to argue RB's post 2000 yard seasons) Not to mention that RB is not that important 4. Vikes QB is bottom tier now RB is getting older WR is far worse O line is okay at best and getting old How well did Allen play last year...that's what I thought 5. Raiders Boss had okay numbers with far superior talent all around...he is no Miller All the lions have is Suh?...really??? LB's really matter in a 3-4 and that is it (to pressure the QB) Like I said the league is not what it used to be b/c of the rules to help offenses. How is your QB play How is your WR play How is your QB pressure Lions win in the most important areas When was the last team to win that depended on a great LB core or secondary? 6. Cards Worst o-line in football = nothing they do will matter The most important areas are QB play and stopping the QB/QB pressure...Kolb is going to get killed back there You think Heap is better at this age...look at his diminished production b/c of injury. Why do you think they let him go? Please tell me how the cards overcame their line last year... or is this another case of 'last year doesn't count' (like the Broncos) instead of it does count (like with the Seahawks)...I can never keep straight which side you are taking TBH most of your arguments made a lot of sense/worked a decade (plus) ago. The ravens won a SB with a game manager QB, a running game, great LB's and secondary. The NFL is not like that anymore. The teams winning for the last 10 years are good at passing the ball and stopping/pressuring QB's...they win with below average RB's, below average to average LB's and secondaries SB winners Packers, Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats, Pats, Bucs, Pats -only the Steelers (their first time) and Bucs did not have excellent QB play -no one them won b/c of a great back Almost every one of them won b/c of QB play and pressuring the QB...even more so in recent years (which is where we are headed to an even greater degree). The lions are better setup to succeed under THESE rules than any team you mentioned

My posts don't contradict each other at all. You are taking things out of context and making oversimplifications. Secondly, it has nothing to do with what you perceive it takes to win a Super Bowl nowadays. The biggest problem I see with the way you're arguing is you're giving way too much credit to the team as a whole. You keep pushing that their defensive line being good means that their entire defense is, as a result, good. That isn't the case. They are weak at every other position on defense and you're overrating their line. They didn't even crack the 50 sack plateau last season. They have one good, young defensive lineman in Suh. Other than him you have two average outside ends and an aging Corey Williams stopping the run. Fairley might help out when Williams is done, but it still wasn't a good draft pick because they have other gigantic holes on their team. You are also giving way too much credit to their QBs. Whoever has played for the Lions has only played marginally well and certainly not to the extend that it takes to carry a team because of a bad defense. You cannot succeed with a bad linebacking corps and a bad secondary, it's not going to happen regardless of how good your dline is. Unless your offense is a powerhouse, which it is not. Calvin Johnson is the only player on the offense who is elite. There is no one else who has consistently produced and they question marks on that oline as well. 1) Yes I do and I still think the Seahawks are better. 2) Like I said, you're giving the Lions QBs way too much credit. 3) Finnegan reported to camp and explicitly stated he's not holding out. Even if all those things are true, and I'm not saying they are, they are still better than the Lions. 4) RB is getting older? That's the stupidest argument honestly. I think you're reaching now. He's 26. He's not even close to old yet. And don't be a smartass and say something like "How well did Allen do" when he had 11 sacks last year and averaged over a sack a game over his last 9. He was more than fine, he was better than anyone on the Lions line. 5) Yes, Suh is the only elite player on that line. LBs do matter, and yet their line had all those sacks AND Wimbley had 9 as the designated pass rusher. No comparison. Dependent is a funny word because no team has ever won a championship without a solid defense. The Lions don't have that, the Raiders do. And don't go off about the Lions QBs again. You act as if they have Peyton Manning. 6) They won with a bad oline with Warner, who isn't a mobile QB like Kolb, so there's no logic there. And I'm not switching sides at all, it's laughable that you're trying to twist what I said. If they've played well with the same players in the past, it's reasonable to think they'd do it again. That's why they're called proven players or proven vets. If they've NEVER played well before or gotten on the field and you claim they're strong in that area, that's worthless conjecture. Oh and yeah, Heap is better than Pettigrew. This also shows your lack of knowledge. Heap was the fourth most targeted player on his team last season behind Rice, Boldin and Mason. Pettigrew was the MOST targeted player on his team. Yes, even more than Megatron. He's not better than Heap, Heap has far better hands and big play ability.
#7 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@frosty your are contradicting yourself, you say: Broncos = last year was an off year, don't count their record Seahawks = they suck, but lets use last years record ...you don't get it both ways 49ers...even if we say D is a wash (which it isn't) the 49ers are far worse at QB (no matter who plays for the Lions), better WR play for lions, Gore is old and hurt every year (I like the Lions rookie), lions have a better line So Lions have a better offense. Titans ...please look at RB stats post 2000 yard seasons...they fall off the first year after...then off a cliff shortly after. CJ getting 1400 yards is VERY optimistic "Bad QB play isn't that big a deal" ...that is what you are going with??? So their QB play will be bad, their RB will not be as good, and you think their offense is on par with the lions? Vikings you are contradicting yourself again "they just had a bad year"...but you say record is what counts with the Seahawks...you don't get it both ways your main argument for the Vikes is D Line...guess what, lions are better there Vikes are terrible at QB (mcNabb has never been accurate, but had mobility and arm strength...age and injury have taken those away...why do you think the eagles traded him to a team they had to play twice a year) Vikes have no WR play...unless you think Percy 'needs an aspirin to play' harvin is a number 1 Lions are better at every spot except for RB. And how long can AP carry the team Raiders How well has that drafting speed worked for them the last decade??? You just said Cambell is bad...they lost his checkdown as well in Zack. So teams are going to kill those 2 RB's The Raiders have a good d line...but lions are better...so where is the advantage (QB, WR, TE, Oline, DL all better with lions...all raiders have is back half of defense and 2 rb's that are going to get killed) Cards Wells has not shown anything. I would rather have Best and the rookie for the Lions. Kolb is an unknown...so we can't say which QB situation is better Fitz and Calvin are a wash IMO TE is better with Lions, CARDS O LINE MIGHT BE WORST IN THE LEAGUE...this alone puts them at the bottom of the league

That's an oversimplification of what I said and you know it. I said Denver has performed well with the same personnel in past years and that, in addition to injuries, made them perform poorly last year. And I said the Seahawks had great coaching and gameplanning to win in the clutch to make a nice playoff run and they dethroned the champion Saints. That is nowhere near what you made it look like I said. So I'm not "going both ways" in any regard. 49ers: You're not responding to what I said, you're reiterating what you said in the first place. As I said before, there isn't a huge difference in the QB play and I showed my numbers for that. Titans: Again, that's based on conjecture and what you PROJECT the player to be next season. I'm basing it off how good they are and have been in the past, not what I think is going to happen. And secondly, it depends on what you mean by "bad QB play." I think Hasselbeck in there will give them a bit more consistently and an average passing game is all they really need because they are a running team. Vikings: Firstly, no that isn't what I'm saying at all. Secondly, sorry, the Lions aren't that much better. They have two good DTs, that's it. They have average pass rushers on the outside. Jared Allen and Kevin Williams are two of the best defensive lineman in the NFL. I don't see the Lions line being THAT much better as you indicated. And taking that away, the Vikings still have a better linebacking corps and at least they have one good corner in Antoine Winfield. The Lions have nothing. Raiders: Yeah, they went 8-8 last season and played pretty well. They were inconsistent, but that doesn't make them worse than the lions. Zach Miller had 685 yards and 5 TDs. They just picked up a guy in Boss who had 531 yards and 5 TDs. Boss isn't as good as Miller, but losing him is way less big a deal then you're making it out to be. Their offense is not going to crumble because of one guy. And again, you're projecting their RBs to get killed when they played at a very high level coming in. Doesn't make any sense. And you really don't know anything about the Raiders if you think the Lions Dline is better. It's not. 4-3 might have more flashy numbers, but the Raiders line is better. All the Lions have is Suh, other than that, the Raiders lineman are better. Shaughnessy had 7 sacks as a 34 DE, they have Richard Seymore one of the best interior lineman in the NFL period, they also have Tommie Kelly playing at a high level and getting 7 sacks of his own, and they have Lamarr Houston playing the 34 DE spot and getting 5 sacks. You don't get numbers like that from a 34 defensive line, but they got it because they're very good. Don't downplay how good that line is just to make a point. In addition to that, they also have a FAR superior linebacking corps as well as far super safeties. There is no comparison between the Raiders defense and the Lions defense, the Raiders are far and away the better team there. That coupled with a better running game and ball control and the Raiders are just a better team. Cards You would rather have Best? Really? They guy who average 3.2 yards a carry last year? Beanie well had 800 yards his rookie season, splitting carries with the other running backs. You say Wells hasn't shown anything and then you say you'd rather have a rookie and Jahvid Best? No logic there, at all. TE is better with Lions? Nope. Todd Heap is old, he's still a good player and he's better than slow ass Pettigrew. Cards O-line is bad, but they've overcome it in the past so I don't see that knocking them below the Lions.
#8 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -

The seahawks? Lynch had two good games all year...one regular season game and the playoff game (he wa son my fantasy team, trust me) T Jack to Rice connection...we have seen that before and it sucks (with a better O line and running game in Minnesota) The Broncos won 4 games last year...with Orton...now imagine what will happen with Tebow Royal had one good year two years ago and Lloyd has had one good year Moreno always gets hurt D has some good players, but many are old Give me the Lions offense and their D-line over anything the Broncos have The 49ers have Willis and Davis...I will give you that. Their back half of their Defense is FAAAAR worse than the lions, the lions have a better Defensive Front The Lions have 3 QB's better than anything the 49ers have The lions TE is good (not great like Davis) Gore is getting old (by RB standards and has bad knees and always gets hurt) I love Crabtree (from Tech)...but he is not a number 1 guy IMO The titans keep losing their good defensive players maybe the younger ones step up...maybe they don't...can't bank on it (same as you don't bank on Stafford) Britt is a head case. Do you trust him? Bad QB play, Johnson losing a step (now two years removed from all world year...happens to every back) Name one thing you would want from the Vikings except AP ...nothing...not a damn thing (maybe TE) Their O line is old and slow QB sucks now (was never accurate, now one hops passes and lost mobility) Defense lost some good players and rest got old The Browns are a wildcard I THINK they overachieved, but maybe not...maybe I am wrong and Colt is a solid NFL player I just don't see them getting the special teams play they did nor getting the production from the run game Raiders ...you are depending on that QB play (they let the only decent one they had go b/c Al Davis is in love with Jason) ...you are depending on one of the biggest busts in recent memory at WR ...you are depending on a RB that is always hurt ...they lost their only real receiving threat Now teams will be able to pass all over them AZ...you don't see the talent drop? Warner (arguable HOF player) gone, replaced by an unknown RB...worse WR...worse (Boldin and Breaston gone) Defense...older and trying to plug holes O Line...older Out of any of those, I will give that AZ could be close (depends on QB play) and the Browns if Colt is legit but that still leaves 11 teams worse...even if I add in 2 more for fun, that leaves 9 team worse...puts lions at 10th worst (far removed from bottom 4)rawsavon

Seahawks: Doesn't matter, they had a better record and they dethroned the Saints in the playoffs.

Broncos: Again, it was an off year. They've performed well with the same guys. Better than the Lions ever have.

49ers: Far worse? Not really. Delmas had ZERO picks last season, Spievey is unproven and both their corners got absolutely torched last season. Far worse is an exaggeration, they are both bad. The Lions having a better defensive front is a given, but that's literally the only strength they have on defense. The 9ers have a better linebacking corps and their line isn't bad. Gore being "OLD" is irrelevant. He is a 1000 yard rusher (1500 scrimmage yards. If he was on the wrong side of 30, fine. He's 28 and he still ran for 800 yards last year, he's far from done and he's far better than anyone the Lions have. As far as the QBs go, as I said, you can't argue for Stafford, he doesn't get on the field. Was Hill better than Smith? Sure. But it's not night and day. Smith: 2370 yards, 14 TDs, 10 INTs, 82.1 rating. Hill: 2686 yards, 16 TDs, 12 INTs, 81.3 rating.

Titans: Their line still has proven guys on it and they still have proven guys in their secondary regardless of whatever young guys are stepping up as well. Britt being a "head case" is irrelevant, he's a GOOD receiver. Bad QB play isn't that big a deal. They have Hasselbeck, he can check down enough to free up Chris Johnson. And yeah, CJ's a lost a step from his 2000 yard year but what RB hasn't after a year like that? Did you really expect another 2000 yard year? He still had close to 1400 yards, he still had 11 TDs, he still had 44 receptions, he can still carry that offense despite the poor QB play. His offense by itself is better than anything the Lions have to offer.

Vikings: Umm, they still have a great defensive line. Jared Allen isn't going away and K.Williams is one of the best DTs in the NFL. They still have Harvin and assuming they revert back to a running offense, they will be just fine with McNabb checking the ball down and AP/Toby Gerhart running the ball. They had a bad year, but those are the same guys that played well before. They're not done.

Raiders: They have busts, they also have speed and last season they proved they can kill with that speed. Their defense is still good, one player gone isn't going to affect it that much. McFadden played a full year last year and put on weight because his legs were too skinny (that's why he was getting hurt). Is Campbell good? Hell no, I'd rather have Shaun Hill. But they don't need him to be good with the number 1 rushing attacks and an offensive genius in Hue Jackson.

Warner being gone is the biggest drop I see. They won't be as good as they were with him, no question. But Fitzgerald is good enough that he doesn't need a great number 2 to make plays. The guys they have on defense are good, better than the Lions and with an offense that now has Kolb (who I won't say is better than Stafford or Hill but is certainly better than DA, Skelton or Hall) who will, at the very least, get them some first downs. They have Beanie Wells and they drafted a guy to take the pressure off him too. I just don't see the Lions being better honestly.

You obviously have you're own logic when rating these teams because it seems you're placing emphasize where I wouldn't. I simply think the Lions are overhyped. They have bad corners, bad safeties and bad linebackers. And instead of addressing that, they chose to draft a DT when they already have 2 good ones, and a running back, when they already have Jahvid Best (who they spent a first rounder on last year). They also drafted a WR when they went and paid Burleson number 1 money last season. That screams stupidity to me and I think their holes will show up in the regular season.

#9 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -

[QUOTE="frostybanana"]Bills, Bengals, Redskins, Dolphins, Panthers, Lions, Seahawks, Cardinals, Browns, Rams.rawsavon
Since we are focused on the Lions atm, I will list the teams I think are worse and we can go from there -keep in mind that record =/= how good a team is (part of it but not all of it) b/c there is not a balanced schedule in the NFL #32 Panthers #31 Seattle #30 Bungles #29 Broncos #28 Dolphins #27 Bills #26 49ers #25 Redskins #24 Titans #23 Vikings #22 Browns #21 Raiders #20 Arizona ...then the lions *the order might be a little off, but not much difference in 29 and 31 IMO...would require that I put in lots of though Since there is no point in discussing the ones we agree on, do tell why you rank the ones I have below the lions above them

Fair enough.

I would agree about Seattle had they not won against the Rams and then against the Saints the following week. It wasn't a fluke, they were playing with an intensity. I actually watched them beat the Rams fully expecting the Rams to win, but I saw every player on the team get up and perform at another level, much like the Cardinals did a few years ago to make it to the Super Bowl. It's a testament to impressive gameplanning, preparation and coaching and the Seahawks brought it when it mattered. I don't see them as a MUCH worse team now despite not having Hasselbeck because they've added weapons in Zach Miller and Sidney Rice.

Broncos are a team that has a lot of veteran talent that has shown in the past they can play at a very high level. Guys like Bailey, Dawkins, Dumervil, D.J. Williams to name a few. They also have, in addition to those guys, a nice group of young talent in Tebow, Demaryius Thomas, Knowshon Moreno, Eddie Royal, etc and while they've only shown flashes, the team as a whole has shown they can play at a high level. Last year was a down year with the SAME guys they've had in seasons past. I don't think they're great, I do think they're better than the Lions.

49ers are guilty of the same thing the Lions are. The only difference is they lost because of piss poor coaching and gameplanning. They still have some of the best players in the league in Patrick Willis, Frank Gore and Vernon Davis and now they've brought in a competent head coach. They drafted big needs on the defense and got their QB in Kaepernick. That along with the great talent they have on defense already tells me they're on the right track. Now, they DO have holes on their defense, particularly in the secondary. But so do the Lions and the Lions' holes don't stop there.

The Titans are nowhere near as bad as they seem. They have two good corners (verner, finnegan), a first rounder to replace babin (derrick morgan), TWO good defensive tackles, (Jones, Haye) and two good safeties. Obviously they're not all all-pros but they're starters. The only hole they have is their linebacking corps, which isn't great, but it's better than the Lions. And on offense, they have guys like Chris Johnson and Kenny Britt, they'll be OK because they're a running team.

The Vikings biggest problem is that they're old. But they're not worst than the Lions. They've been able to push their offense on AP's back before, they can do it again and defensively they have proven veterans that can step up. The biggest loss is Ray Edwards, but they have plenty of talent on the lines anyways. Their secondary IS questionable and I have no redeeming qualities for it at all. Their back end is awful and it's their biggest hole. But they have solid LBs and a solid line and that's what they've thrived on in the past. With AP on offense, they're still a better team than the Lions.

The Browns are a much better team than you might think. You claim the Lions division is hard (if not the hardest), I don't think there's a tougher division in football than the AFC North. The Browns have good players, they need a more consistent gameplan. They have Hillis in the backfield, who won't have to carry a full load with the returning Montario Hardesty. McCoy played in an offense with no weapons and still played decently for a rookie. They drafted Greg Little and shored up their defensive line. They have a good young secondary, although the free spot is a question mark. Their linebackers aren't great, and that's probably their biggest weakness. I still see them as a better team than the Lions because they have a solid running game and a hard hitting defensive mindset.

The Raiders? I'm a little confused you think the Lions are better than them to be frank. They don't have the best offense, but they have a GOOD defense. Yes, they lost Nnamdi, and their corners are a poor as a result, but they have two solid safeties, a great linebacking corps and a fantastic line to boot. They are a dangerous team. Their offense can kill you with it's speed and they can control the clock at the same time with their phenomenal running game.

Arizona is not that much different from the team that went to the Super Bowl a few years ago. The only difference is no quarterback this time around. Even so, going into the year I thought they'd have the best secondary in football (Patrick Peterson, Adrian Wilson, Kerry Rhodes and DRC) but then they decided to be stupid and trade DRC. So while their secondary will be OK because they have Toler and picked up Marshall, they might not be the best in the league as I thought. Even so, they have a GREAT defensive line with Dockett, Dan Williams and Campbell and that coupled with their secondary will make them dangerous and make up for their less the stellar linebackers. A healthy Beanie Wells a new QB and Larry FItz will mean they're on the right track on offense. All in all, I don't see THAT big a difference from a talent perspective in their team from a few years ago other than Kurt Warner and their linebackers. But I think they've improved enough in areas that matter that they can overcome that.

Sorry that took so long.

#10 Posted by frostybanana (5523 posts) -
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="frostybanana"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Please list your bottom 10 then

Honestly, I'm not going to list and order them. If you ask me about specific teams, I'll answer. But the only other team other than the teams I already mentioned that are worse than the Lions, IMO, are the Panthers.

you said you have them as bottom 6...how can I get any feel for your opinions without seeing your bottom 10 I am not asking you to rank all 32 teams-just your bottom 10 It should take you no more than 2 minutes (about as long as it took to post your last message) It seems you are just holding onto that opinion (about the Lions) atm with no support behind it (that is why I wanted to see where you really rank them)

Oh trust me, I can go in depth as to why I think the Lions suck, no problem. I'm not holding out any information for lack of support, it's more because if I did type it all out it would be boring to read and boring for me to write. If you really want me to list them out, that's fine: Bills, Bengals, Redskins, Dolphins, Panthers, Lions, Seahawks, Cardinals, Browns, Rams.