Have the Ravens, Steelers and Bengals benefitted from the Browns lack of success?
-
hoorta, these 2 links in this post are from the steelers 05 (11-5) season. the first link is from wk 13 when the steelers were on a 3 game losing streak. the second link is from wk 16 when they beat the browns. the steelers needed to win all four of their remaining games in order to get into the playoffs. so yes, they benefitted from beating a non-competitive browns. one less win that season would've held the steelers out of the playoffs and would've also prevented them from winning the sb that year.
the steelers 05 and 09 seasons were very similiar. in 05, the steelers needed to win their 4 remaining games to get in the playoffs and they benefitted from having to face the browns in one of those games. in 09, the steelers needed to win out after their hell in december plan backfired, but they lost to the browns and missed the playoffs by one game.
wk 13 - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=251204023
The Steelers (7-5) got a gutty effort from Roethlisberger (29-of-41, 386 yards, three touchdowns, three interceptions) despite a possible fractured right thumb but dropped their third in a row and are in danger of not making the playoffs a year after going 15-1.
The way he and the Steelers were talking, the loss hurt more.
"We've put ourselves behind the 8-ball as far as the playoffs go," Ward said. "I think we've got to win all four of our games left."
wk - 16 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=251224005
this quote from wk16 shows that the steelers earned a spot in the playoffs from winning their final game of the season (wk17). so yes, the steelers did back into the playoffs that year. they needed to win all four of the remaining games to get in.
Pittsburgh, which can clinch a playoff spot with a win over Detroit at home next week, seems to have fully recovered from a three-game losing streak that seriously jeopardized the Steelers' postseason hopes.
my op was completely taken out of context. i never said the browns afcn rivals weren't good. my point was that in the past there were times when the browns afcn rivals looked better than they actually were, thanks to the browns. i was trying to tie this into the present state of the afcn and the future. with some of the issues the steelers and the bengals are facing this upcoming season (along with the bengals lack of consistency), these teams can easily get by if the browns have another down season. but an improved browns team can change the game completely.
-
I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.
Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):
Bengals 10-6
Browns 9-7
Steelers 8-8
Ravens 7-9
But you have this in another division:
Colts 11-5
Titans 10-6
Jags 3-13
Texans 2-14
The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.
This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.
That year the AFC North finished like this:
Steelers 12-4
Ravens 11-5
Bengals 4-11-1
Browns 4-12
The AFC East finished like this:
Dolphins 11-5
Patriots 11-5
Jets 9-7
Bills 8-8
Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.
Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.
So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Blah.....blah.....blahWater is wet
Grass is green
The sky is blue
Men are pigs
And women are mean
Aren't I brilliant
Am I brilliant? No, just logical and workmanlike, which combined equals brilliance perhaps. And, occasionally, hopefully, humorous.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Now that's stupid!First off, in 05, the Steelers were ranked in the top five teams the entire season up through week 10 when massive injuries killed them. After a few weeks of recuperation, they came back and ran the table.
Second, every division has it's door mats, granted some are worse than others but 2 games against a weak opponent in a 16 game schedule isn't that big of a deal.
Third, why would you put the Bengals in that mix anyway? The Bengals have done absolutely nothing with their talent, their schedule, their potential..................NOTHING!
what's stupid is that you didn't bother reading or purposely avoided my post #11 which details the steelers 05 season (courtesy of espn links and quotes) and yes the steelers did benefit from beating the browns. reading is fundamental, troll. what's also stupid is that morons like you took my posts completely out of context. your opinion is worthless and you're just a flamer looking to hijack threads so you can live out your cyber tough guy fantasies. good luck with that. there's no rewards for being a lowlife troll like you.
-
I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.
Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):
Bengals 10-6
Browns 9-7
Steelers 8-8
Ravens 7-9
But you have this in another division:
Colts 11-5
Titans 10-6
Jags 3-13
Texans 2-14
The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.
This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.
That year the AFC North finished like this:
Steelers 12-4
Ravens 11-5
Bengals 4-11-1
Browns 4-12
The AFC East finished like this:
Dolphins 11-5
Patriots 11-5
Jets 9-7
Bills 8-8
Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.
Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.
So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.
I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.
Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):
Bengals 10-6
Browns 9-7
Steelers 8-8
Ravens 7-9
But you have this in another division:
Colts 11-5
Titans 10-6
Jags 3-13
Texans 2-14
The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.
This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.
That year the AFC North finished like this:
Steelers 12-4
Ravens 11-5
Bengals 4-11-1
Browns 4-12
The AFC East finished like this:
Dolphins 11-5
Patriots 11-5
Jets 9-7
Bills 8-8
Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.
Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.
So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.
glad you seen where i was coming from, gipper. if you look at what i posted in post#11, i show in detail how the steelers directly benefitted from a lowly browns team in 05. you brought up some really good points to. there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to my op (or my follow up posts), it's just about having a legit response. thanks for the good input.
-
I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.
Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):
Bengals 10-6
Browns 9-7
Steelers 8-8
Ravens 7-9
But you have this in another division:
Colts 11-5
Titans 10-6
Jags 3-13
Texans 2-14
The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.
This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.
That year the AFC North finished like this:
Steelers 12-4
Ravens 11-5
Bengals 4-11-1
Browns 4-12
The AFC East finished like this:
Dolphins 11-5
Patriots 11-5
Jets 9-7
Bills 8-8
Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.
Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.
So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.
glad you seen where i was coming from, gipper. if you look at what i posted in post#11, i show in detail how the steelers directly benefitted from a lowly browns team in 05. you brought up some really good points to. there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to my op (or my follow up posts), it's just about having a legit response. thanks for the good input.
glad you seen where i was coming from, gipper. if you look at what i posted in post#11, i show in detail how the steelers directly benefitted from a lowly browns team in 05. you brought up some really good points to. there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to my op (or my follow up posts), it's just about having a legit response and not the typical troll nonsense. thanks for the good input.
But you can play those hypotheticals to no end. I think Gips pretty well nailed the variables. And sometimes stuff happens that's out of your control- like in the Browns great Anderson year- where they would have made the playoffs if the Colts hadn't decided to tank the game against the Titans.
-
-
I pose this question to my fellow Browns fans. If you look at it for what it really is, the AFCN has feasted for years off of the Browns lack of success. For the last 11 Seasons, the Browns have been plagued by injuries, bad drafts, poor management, bad coaching, etc. Not to mention the fact that the Browns were screwed by the NFL upon re-entering the league and weren't given the same amount of time and money (as other new teams have received) to get ready for the upcoming season.
So what happens to the AFCN if Holmgren is the real deal (as many of us believe) and he gets the Browns back to prominence? What happens to the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers if they can no longer benefit from a weak Browns team. What happens if there are no more guaranteed wins against the Browns and the competition heats up in the AFCN?
In a weakened state, the Browns have (on a few occassions) held their AFCN rivals out of the playoffs by beating them once or twice. So what happens if the Browns are more competitive? What happens if the Browns become a winning organization? Will this expose a team (or teams) in the AFCN and show they're not as good as people thought they were?
I pose this question to my fellow Browns fans. If you look at it for what it really is, the AFCN has feasted for years off of the Browns lack of success. For the last 11 Seasons, the Browns have been plagued by injuries, bad drafts, poor management, bad coaching, etc. Not to mention the fact that the Browns were screwed by the NFL upon re-entering the league and weren't given the same amount of time and money (as other new teams have received) to get ready for the upcoming season.
So what happens to the AFCN if Holmgren is the real deal (as many of us believe) and he gets the Browns back to prominence? What happens to the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers if they can no longer benefit from a weak Browns team. What happens if there are no more guaranteed wins against the Browns and the competition heats up in the AFCN?
In a weakened state, the Browns have (on a few occassions) held their AFCN rivals out of the playoffs by beating them once or twice. So what happens if the Browns are more competitive? What happens if the Browns become a winning organization? Will this expose a team (or teams) in the AFCN and show they're not as good as people thought they were?
Then Maybe they get and extra Loss each Year. Not that Big a deal.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
SJ, I honestly back that 100 %, i truely do. I have always kicked that idea/subject around. When we do beat one of the AFCN teams, it usually put them out of the playoffs, IF we are the real deal this year, I honestly think we won't see the usual, "oh its the browns, free win for us". We will see some good teams hitting it off head to head.
Good post!
-
SJ, I honestly back that 100 %, i truely do. I have always kicked that idea/subject around. When we do beat one of the AFCN teams, it usually put them out of the playoffs, IF we are the real deal this year, I honestly think we won't see the usual, "oh its the browns, free win for us". We will see some good teams hitting it off head to head.
Good post!
SJ, I honestly back that 100 %, i truely do. I have always kicked that idea/subject around. When we do beat one of the AFCN teams, it usually put them out of the playoffs, IF we are the real deal this year, I honestly think we won't see the usual, "oh its the browns, free win for us". We will see some good teams hitting it off head to head.
Good post!
thanks and let's hope we do see an improved browns team this season and beyond!
-
ahmen to that brotha
-
I pose this question to my fellow Browns fans. If you look at it for what it really is, the AFCN has feasted for years off of the Browns lack of success. For the last 11 Seasons, the Browns have been plagued by injuries, bad drafts, poor management, bad coaching, etc. Not to mention the fact that the Browns were screwed by the NFL upon re-entering the league and weren't given the same amount of time and money (as other new teams have received) to get ready for the upcoming season.
So what happens to the AFCN if Holmgren is the real deal (as many of us believe) and he gets the Browns back to prominence? What happens to the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers if they can no longer benefit from a weak Browns team. What happens if there are no more guaranteed wins against the Browns and the competition heats up in the AFCN?
In a weakened state, the Browns have (on a few occassions) held their AFCN rivals out of the playoffs by beating them once or twice. So what happens if the Browns are more competitive? What happens if the Browns become a winning organization? Will this expose a team (or teams) in the AFCN and show they're not as good as people thought they were?
Then Maybe they get and extra Loss each Year. Not that Big a deal.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Then Maybe they get and extra Loss each Year. Not that Big a deal.Look at my example from 2008. If the Ravens had sustained just one extra loss then it would have been a very big deal. Unless you think that going from making the playoffs to not making the playoffs is no big deal. Most teams think its a pretty big deal. I mean, in 2005, your 6th seed Steelers would have stayed home with an extra loss. Instead, they end up winning the SB.....sounds like a big deal to me! Maybe winning a Super Bowl is no longer a big deal for certain Steeler fans? Hmm?
-
Formerly Stone said:
It's not that one game can't mean anything, it's just that it's a silly concept to think that because team A is a doormat that teams B, C, and D are over-rated. there are several divisions every year where one team benefits from another team's ineptitude. Look at the divisions that house the Lions, the Raiders, the Rams......hell Cleveland could compete in that division!And ........as a die hard Steeler fan who knows that the Steelers have been far superior to the Browns for a long, long, time, it's a game I fear twice every year!
Maybe I misread the question. I don't recall that he said that teams in a division with a couple of "doormats" are "overrated". I thought he said do those good teams "benefit" from being in a division with a doormat or two.
I think clearly the 2008 Ravens in my example "benefitted" from being in a division with a couple of doormats over the Pats who were in a much tougher division. That doesn't mean they were overrated as in "they are likely to get unceremoniously bounced out of the playoffs because they weren't all that good to begin with".
I don't think its that the Ravens say, were a "bad" team that got in over a good team, but that the Pats, who may in fact have been a better team, got knocked out in favor of the Ravens."
Maybe the original poster can explain his statement.
(I note parenthetically that the Ravens met the Steelers in the AFC title game that year, so I can't say that either of those teams were overrated. On the other hand, had the Pats made the playoffs we can only speculate how far they could have gone given how well they had performed in recent postseasons.)
-
Formerly Stone said:
It's not that one game can't mean anything, it's just that it's a silly concept to think that because team A is a doormat that teams B, C, and D are over-rated. there are several divisions every year where one team benefits from another team's ineptitude. Look at the divisions that house the Lions, the Raiders, the Rams......hell Cleveland could compete in that division!And ........as a die hard Steeler fan who knows that the Steelers have been far superior to the Browns for a long, long, time, it's a game I fear twice every year!
Maybe I misread the question. I don't recall that he said that teams in a division with a couple of "doormats" are "overrated". I thought he said do those good teams "benefit" from being in a division with a doormat or two.
I think clearly the 2008 Ravens in my example "benefitted" from being in a division with a couple of doormats over the Pats who were in a much tougher division. That doesn't mean they were overrated as in "they are likely to get unceremoniously bounced out of the playoffs because they weren't all that good to begin with".
I don't think its that the Ravens say, were a "bad" team that got in over a good team, but that the Pats, who may in fact have been a better team, got knocked out in favor of the Ravens."
Maybe the original poster can explain his statement.
(I note parenthetically that the Ravens met the Steelers in the AFC title game that year, so I can't say that either of those teams were overrated. On the other hand, had the Pats made the playoffs we can only speculate how far they could have gone given how well they had performed in recent postseasons.)
Maybe I misread the question. I don't recall that he said that teams in a division with a couple of "doormats" are "overrated". I thought he said do those good teams "benefit" from being in a division with a doormat or two.
I think clearly the 2008 Ravens in my example "benefitted" from being in a division with a couple of doormats over the Pats who were in a much tougher division. That doesn't mean they were overrated as in "they are likely to get unceremoniously bounced out of the playoffs because they weren't all that good to begin with".
I don't think its that the Ravens say, were a "bad" team that got in over a good team, but that the Pats, who may in fact have been a better team, got knocked out in favor of the Ravens."
Maybe the original poster can explain his statement.
(I note parenthetically that the Ravens met the Steelers in the AFC title game that year, so I can't say that either of those teams were overrated. On the other hand, had the Pats made the playoffs we can only speculate how far they could have gone given how well they had performed in recent postseasons.)
taken from my post #11
my op was completely taken out of context. i never said the browns afcn rivals weren't good. my point was that in the past there were times when the browns afcn rivals looked better than they actually were, thanks to the browns. i was trying to tie this into the present state of the afcn and the future. with some of the issues the steelers and the bengals are facing this upcoming season (along with the bengals lack of consistency), these teams can easily get by if the browns have another down season. but an improved browns team can change the game completely.
you're correct, gipper. i NEVER said the browns afcn rivals were bad teams. i asked a question and presented some some info, then i gave my opinion on the matter. i just wanted to open up a discussion about this on this board. i shouldn't have to explain myself because my op was self explanatory. you and brownsfan althaus understood where i was coming from. you two didn't need any further explanation.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Apparently, you get so wrapped up planning your "look at me" responses you often fail to read even the title of the original post.What I got wrapped up in is the facts. If you want me to say, no, I don't think those teams were overrated, but they may indeed have benefitted from the Browns lack of success, Well, I think I did just say that.
Apparently you got so wrapped up in worrying about finding some small chink of an error in my statements that you lost sight of the interesting substance of this discussion.
You're so worried about the cover, you forgot to read the book.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Apparently, you get so wrapped up planning your "look at me" responses you often fail to read even the title of the original post.you often fail to understand the difference between a question and a statement....................dumb ass. do you see the question mark used in the thread title, you f*cking moron?
-
Formerly Stone said:
Apparently, you get so wrapped up planning your "look at me" responses you often fail to read even the title of the original post.What I got wrapped up in is the facts. If you want me to say, no, I don't think those teams were overrated, but they may indeed have benefitted from the Browns lack of success, Well, I think I did just say that.
Apparently you got so wrapped up in worrying about finding some small chink of an error in my statements that you lost sight of the interesting substance of this discussion.
You're so worried about the cover, you forgot to read the book.
Apparently you got so wrapped up in worrying about finding some small chink of an error in my statements that you lost sight of the interesting substance of this discussion.
BINGO! this sums up every steeler troll on this board. they take anything they can to create an argument. that's their agenda on this board. to be an arrogant schmuck somehow thinking being a steeler fan gives them superiority over other people. what a bunch of losers. no life, too much time on their hands=troll on a browns board.
-
Apparently you got so wrapped up in worrying about finding some small chink of an error in my statements that you lost sight of the interesting substance of this discussion.
BINGO! this sums up every steeler troll on this board. they take anything they can to create an argument. that's their agenda on this board. to be an arrogant schmuck somehow thinking being a steeler fan gives them superiority over other people. what a bunch of losers. no life, too much time on their hands=troll on a browns board.
BINGO! this sums up every steeler troll on this board. they take anything they can to create an argument. that's their agenda on this board. to be an arrogant schmuck somehow thinking being a steeler fan gives them superiority over other people. what a bunch of losers. no life, too much time on their hands=troll on a browns board.
So what you're saying is you have a inferiority complex? and Gipper does routinely skip over portions of posts and only highlights what he believes are strengths in his argument. He doesn't do it all the time but it happens often enough that I find myself saying "WTF" out loud because of his routine elimination of certain points he deems not worth discussing. Mostly because a "witty answer" can't be provided. I certainly don't have a superiority complex but I know the Steelers are certainly the better team and the people here claiming otherwise live in the land of delusion. I also thought this thread was RetardED when it was first posted and it's still severely lacking. The Browns will be a under .500 team this season. Write it down.
-
BINGO! this sums up every steeler troll on this board. they take anything they can to create an argument. that's their agenda on this board. to be an arrogant schmuck somehow thinking being a steeler fan gives them superiority over other people. what a bunch of losers. no life, too much time on their hands=troll on a browns board.
So what you're saying is you have a inferiority complex? and Gipper does routinely skip over portions of posts and only highlights what he believes are strengths in his argument. He doesn't do it all the time but it happens often enough that I find myself saying "WTF" out loud because of his routine elimination of certain points he deems not worth discussing. Mostly because a "witty answer" can't be provided. I certainly don't have a superiority complex but I know the Steelers are certainly the better team and the people here claiming otherwise live in the land of delusion. I also thought this thread was RetardED when it was first posted and it's still severely lacking. The Browns will be a under .500 team this season. Write it down.
Rorbotron said:
So what you're saying is you have a inferiority complex? and Gipper does routinely skip over portions of posts and only highlights what he believes are strengths in his argument. He doesn't do it all the time but it happens often enough that I find myself saying "WTF" out loud because of his routine elimination of certain points he deems not worth discussing. Mostly because a "witty answer" can't be provided. I certainly don't have a superiority complex but I know the Steelers are certainly the better team and the people here claiming otherwise live in the land of delusion. I also thought this thread was RetardED when it was first posted and it's still severely lacking. The Browns will be a under .500 team this season. Write it down.Its not so much that I am "skipping over" a part of someone statement purposely, its just that I am perhaps concentrating on some other portion of the question at hand.
Like here, as I was trying to elucidate with certain examples that a team in a division could have "benefitted" from a lack of success of other teams in that division, I completely overlooked the statement that "therefor they were overrated".
I was simply oblivious to that comment, but when reminded of it I went back and saw saying "Oh, OK, there it is".
The issue of those teams being "overrated" simply wasn't germaine to my thought processes, so I must have blocked it out. In the back of my mind I must have also perhaps thought it was an irrelevent portion of the statement.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Actually, when the old Gipper reads a post he only picks up on something that will allow him to say "well, if you'll read what I said about blah, blah, blah, you will see where I said blah, blah, blah" The old Gipper's posts are usually about the old Gipper.The original poster is probably 14!
Actually, in this case I think what I was doing was simply ignoring the "flamer" part of the post. I simply didn't think I needed to support his flamethrowing with some of my own, especially when I didn't agree with it, thus, I forgot the "Overrated" comment was even made"
I chose to look at the interesting analytical question contained in that post.
Recall that when reminded by you of the "overrated" comment, I agreed with your statement about it.
WhatsamattaU? Are you so insecure that you can't figure out how to take it when I agree with you?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login