Say what you want about Flacco. But that kid has made home HUGE passes when it counted. He is playoff tested UNLIKE the great "matty ice"
HE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES
Isnt that what they say about Tebow?
Except Joe really does WIN. He always has. Ever since he came into the league. FUCK the numbers guys who cares about all that shit? It's WINS and LOSSES.
Flacco WINS.
Matty "Ice" is not great, he falls into the Tier 2 bunch of mediocre QB's like Mark Sanchez, Blaine Gabbert, Flacco, Sam Bradford, and Kevin Kolb. These guys can only win if the talent around them is through the roof.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
Say what you want about Flacco. But that kid has made home HUGE passes when it counted. He is playoff tested UNLIKE the great "matty ice"
HE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES
Isnt that what they say about Tebow?
Except Joe really does WIN. He always has. Ever since he came into the league. FUCK the numbers guys who cares about all that shit? It's WINS and LOSSES.
Flacco WINS.
Matty "Ice" is not great, he falls into the Tier 2 bunch of mediocre QB's like Mark Sanchez, Blaine Gabbert, Flacco, Sam Bradford, and Kevin Kolb. These guys can only win if the talent around them is through the roof.
Swept the division - Bengals were a good football team!
Let me get this straight. The Patriots (2-2 versus playoff teams and 0-2 versus teams with a winning record) are not a very good team because they have not beaten a team with a winning record but the Bengals, a team that was 0-8 versus playoff teams and 1-7 versus teams with a winning record, were a good team?
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
Swept the division - Bengals were a good football team!
Let me get this straight. The Patriots (2-2 versus playoff teams and 0-2 versus teams with a winning record) are not a very good team because they have not beaten a team with a winning record but the Bengals, a team that was 0-8 versus playoff teams and 1-7 versus teams with a winning record, were a good team?
San Diego - playing for their lives, Ravens had already clinched playoff spot
What a let down it must have been for the Ravens to have won the division and clinched a first round bye when they were clearly trying to be a wild card team.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
San Diego - playing for their lives, Ravens had already clinched playoff spot
What a let down it must have been for the Ravens to have won the division and clinched a first round bye when they were clearly trying to be a wild card team.
Let me get this straight. The Patriots (2-2 versus playoff teams and 0-2 versus teams with a winning record) are not a very good team because they have not beaten a team with a winning record but the Bengals, a team that was 0-8 versus playoff teams and 1-7 versus teams with a winning record, were a good team?
They Bengals made the playoffs. And who said the Ravens were trying to be a wildcard team? They beat the Steelers twice because they had to. Sending them on the road to play the Broncos. That could have been them getting eliminated in overtime if not for their superb season.
0
Quote Originally Posted by spiff:
Let me get this straight. The Patriots (2-2 versus playoff teams and 0-2 versus teams with a winning record) are not a very good team because they have not beaten a team with a winning record but the Bengals, a team that was 0-8 versus playoff teams and 1-7 versus teams with a winning record, were a good team?
They Bengals made the playoffs. And who said the Ravens were trying to be a wildcard team? They beat the Steelers twice because they had to. Sending them on the road to play the Broncos. That could have been them getting eliminated in overtime if not for their superb season.
They Bengals made the playoffs. And who said the Ravens were trying to be a wildcard team? They beat the Steelers twice because they had to. Sending them on the road to play the Broncos. That could have been them getting eliminated in overtime if not for their superb season.
The Bengals making the playoffs means what? They are good?
"Bengals were a good football team!"
You said it, not me and with an explanation point no less.
"Ok what have the Pats accomplished? They have not beat a team with a winning record, gentlemen."
Those are your words too.
The implication is that Patriots are not a good team because they have not beat a winning team. Yet the Bengals are a good team with an explanation point simply because they made the playoffs even though they ended up 0-8 against playoff teams.
You are saying the Patriots only appear to be a good team by your quality victory theory which would make the Bengals even worse. In the same breath of dismissing the Patriots you consider the Ravens wins over the Bengals as quality wins. I suppose you need to do that to make yourself feel better.
You basically said they played for the wild card. You offered up the excuse for each Raven loss (which means Covers should know what to expect next week should the Patriots win) and for the San Diego loss you said:
"San Diego - playing for their lives, Ravens had already clinched playoff spot"
Again, your words, not mine. So according to you the Ravens were content to just make the playoffs and didn't try to beat San Diego (because of course had they wanted to they certainly would have) even though they had not clinched the bye and had the Steelers won out after the Ravens lost this game then the Steelers, not the Ravens, would have had the bye.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
They Bengals made the playoffs. And who said the Ravens were trying to be a wildcard team? They beat the Steelers twice because they had to. Sending them on the road to play the Broncos. That could have been them getting eliminated in overtime if not for their superb season.
The Bengals making the playoffs means what? They are good?
"Bengals were a good football team!"
You said it, not me and with an explanation point no less.
"Ok what have the Pats accomplished? They have not beat a team with a winning record, gentlemen."
Those are your words too.
The implication is that Patriots are not a good team because they have not beat a winning team. Yet the Bengals are a good team with an explanation point simply because they made the playoffs even though they ended up 0-8 against playoff teams.
You are saying the Patriots only appear to be a good team by your quality victory theory which would make the Bengals even worse. In the same breath of dismissing the Patriots you consider the Ravens wins over the Bengals as quality wins. I suppose you need to do that to make yourself feel better.
You basically said they played for the wild card. You offered up the excuse for each Raven loss (which means Covers should know what to expect next week should the Patriots win) and for the San Diego loss you said:
"San Diego - playing for their lives, Ravens had already clinched playoff spot"
Again, your words, not mine. So according to you the Ravens were content to just make the playoffs and didn't try to beat San Diego (because of course had they wanted to they certainly would have) even though they had not clinched the bye and had the Steelers won out after the Ravens lost this game then the Steelers, not the Ravens, would have had the bye.
1) The Bengals had a rookie quarterback. The patriots have a 3 time superbowl winning qb.
2) The Ravens were happy to make the playoffs, not content, and knew going into the san diego that it would be a tough game. Lardarius Webb did not play. The ravens rookie cb got picked on. Traveling to the west coast is not easy. New England however, is just a few hours away.
0
The rebuttal to your argument is easy...
1) The Bengals had a rookie quarterback. The patriots have a 3 time superbowl winning qb.
2) The Ravens were happy to make the playoffs, not content, and knew going into the san diego that it would be a tough game. Lardarius Webb did not play. The ravens rookie cb got picked on. Traveling to the west coast is not easy. New England however, is just a few hours away.
1) The Bengals had a rookie quarterback. The patriots have a 3 time superbowl winning qb.
2) The Ravens were happy to make the playoffs, not content, and knew going into the san diego that it would be a tough game. Lardarius Webb did not play. The ravens rookie cb got picked on. Traveling to the west coast is not easy. New England however, is just a few hours away.
1) You don't even answer the question. You said the Bengals were good with an explanation point.
They finished 0-8 against playoff teams and now you have pointed out the obvious that they have a rookie quarterback. How does that support your statement that they are good? How does it make the Patriots not good?
You clearly are trying to make the Ravens look as good as possible while dismissing the Patriots as not a very good team. You boast about the Ravens victories in an attempt to make them all seem quality. A 7-0 record against playoff teams is better then saying they are 5-0 against quality teams. That is still an excellent mark but of course 7-0 sounds so much better. Then there are the excuses for the 4 losses in order to minimize them and give the appearance that the Ravens are much better then anyone really thinks.
2) They knew it would be a tough game? So they did try to win? You said they already clinched a playoff spot which would mean they didn't really care to win. Of course that was simply your attempt to minimize the loss.
How far is Nashville or Jacksonville? Oh wait, you already minimized those losses with excuses too.
Of course, if Webb had played the Ravens surely would have won. Well, that and 3 more touchdowns.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
The rebuttal to your argument is easy...
1) The Bengals had a rookie quarterback. The patriots have a 3 time superbowl winning qb.
2) The Ravens were happy to make the playoffs, not content, and knew going into the san diego that it would be a tough game. Lardarius Webb did not play. The ravens rookie cb got picked on. Traveling to the west coast is not easy. New England however, is just a few hours away.
1) You don't even answer the question. You said the Bengals were good with an explanation point.
They finished 0-8 against playoff teams and now you have pointed out the obvious that they have a rookie quarterback. How does that support your statement that they are good? How does it make the Patriots not good?
You clearly are trying to make the Ravens look as good as possible while dismissing the Patriots as not a very good team. You boast about the Ravens victories in an attempt to make them all seem quality. A 7-0 record against playoff teams is better then saying they are 5-0 against quality teams. That is still an excellent mark but of course 7-0 sounds so much better. Then there are the excuses for the 4 losses in order to minimize them and give the appearance that the Ravens are much better then anyone really thinks.
2) They knew it would be a tough game? So they did try to win? You said they already clinched a playoff spot which would mean they didn't really care to win. Of course that was simply your attempt to minimize the loss.
How far is Nashville or Jacksonville? Oh wait, you already minimized those losses with excuses too.
Of course, if Webb had played the Ravens surely would have won. Well, that and 3 more touchdowns.
Titans, seahawks, jaguars and chargers all embarrassing losses and beat the browns by 14 and by 6 points on christmas eve and struggled to beat a 3rd string rookie qb at home in the playoffs. The ravens = overrated and inconsistent. Impossible for me to ignore these facts.
0
Titans, seahawks, jaguars and chargers all embarrassing losses and beat the browns by 14 and by 6 points on christmas eve and struggled to beat a 3rd string rookie qb at home in the playoffs. The ravens = overrated and inconsistent. Impossible for me to ignore these facts.
And where is the toughest place the Patriots played this year?
Where did they go?
Dalton won in seattle and tennessee. I'll say it again. The bengals were a good football team.
I never said you stated they are not good but that you are implying it through your statements.
Their defense sucks but they are a good team?
I don't opine about whose home field is tougher. If a team is not good then it usually doesn't matter. Kansas City has a reputation as being a tough place to play but the Chiefs were 3-5 at home this year. Denver (3-5) and Seattle (4-4) have been also been voted as tough venues. I did a cursory search on the Internet but didn't find any list of tough NFL venues listing Tennessee (5-3).
However, that explains a lot and ties in with your attempt and making the Ravens appear better. The Bengals won in Seattle and Tennessee whereas the Ravens lost in both locations. Therefore, the Bengals, despite their 0-8 record against playoff teams, must be good with an explanation point because there is no way a team can beat teams the Ravens can't beat and not be good.
Now you have answered the question.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
And where did I say the Patriots are a bad team?
I said their defense sucks.
And where is the toughest place the Patriots played this year?
Where did they go?
Dalton won in seattle and tennessee. I'll say it again. The bengals were a good football team.
I never said you stated they are not good but that you are implying it through your statements.
Their defense sucks but they are a good team?
I don't opine about whose home field is tougher. If a team is not good then it usually doesn't matter. Kansas City has a reputation as being a tough place to play but the Chiefs were 3-5 at home this year. Denver (3-5) and Seattle (4-4) have been also been voted as tough venues. I did a cursory search on the Internet but didn't find any list of tough NFL venues listing Tennessee (5-3).
However, that explains a lot and ties in with your attempt and making the Ravens appear better. The Bengals won in Seattle and Tennessee whereas the Ravens lost in both locations. Therefore, the Bengals, despite their 0-8 record against playoff teams, must be good with an explanation point because there is no way a team can beat teams the Ravens can't beat and not be good.
Titans, seahawks, jaguars and chargers all embarrassing losses and beat the browns by 14 and by 6 points on christmas eve and struggled to beat a 3rd string rookie qb at home in the playoffs. The ravens = overrated and inconsistent. Impossible for me to ignore these facts.
You people are never going to understand this the NFL is about wins and losses. The players don't care about point spreads. Which is why in this case, the ravens are the bet. Because they aren't trying to cover. They are trying to win!
0
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:
Titans, seahawks, jaguars and chargers all embarrassing losses and beat the browns by 14 and by 6 points on christmas eve and struggled to beat a 3rd string rookie qb at home in the playoffs. The ravens = overrated and inconsistent. Impossible for me to ignore these facts.
You people are never going to understand this the NFL is about wins and losses. The players don't care about point spreads. Which is why in this case, the ravens are the bet. Because they aren't trying to cover. They are trying to win!
I never said you stated they are not good but that you are implying it through your statements.
Their defense sucks but they are a good team?
I don't opine about whose home field is tougher. If a team is not good then it usually doesn't matter. Kansas City has a reputation as being a tough place to play but the Chiefs were 3-5 at home this year. Denver (3-5) and Seattle (4-4) have been also been voted as tough venues. I did a cursory search on the Internet but didn't find any list of tough NFL venues listing Tennessee (5-3).
However, that explains a lot and ties in with your attempt and making the Ravens appear better. The Bengals won in Seattle and Tennessee whereas the Ravens lost in both locations. Therefore, the Bengals, despite their 0-8 record against playoff teams, must be good with an explanation point because there is no way a team can beat teams the Ravens can't beat and not be good.
Now you have answered the question.
Ok, so why don't you do a search on this - The Ravens lost to tenn and seattle after two hard fought blood baths against the steelers. anyone whos familiar with those games will tell you its a slobberknockers everytime.
So yea the Ravens lost. The other team is getting paid too. Did you want them to go undefeated. Lord knows only one team has ever done it.
But where are the steelers now? They are home.
The texans game was nothing like those games and the ravens came out relatively healthy with the exception of reed. (whos playing on sunday nevertheless)
Furthermore, the ravens are better now then they were in 09.
It's very possible that the same outcome will happen, or maybe even worse.
History always repeats itself doesn't it?
0
Quote Originally Posted by spiff:
I never said you stated they are not good but that you are implying it through your statements.
Their defense sucks but they are a good team?
I don't opine about whose home field is tougher. If a team is not good then it usually doesn't matter. Kansas City has a reputation as being a tough place to play but the Chiefs were 3-5 at home this year. Denver (3-5) and Seattle (4-4) have been also been voted as tough venues. I did a cursory search on the Internet but didn't find any list of tough NFL venues listing Tennessee (5-3).
However, that explains a lot and ties in with your attempt and making the Ravens appear better. The Bengals won in Seattle and Tennessee whereas the Ravens lost in both locations. Therefore, the Bengals, despite their 0-8 record against playoff teams, must be good with an explanation point because there is no way a team can beat teams the Ravens can't beat and not be good.
Now you have answered the question.
Ok, so why don't you do a search on this - The Ravens lost to tenn and seattle after two hard fought blood baths against the steelers. anyone whos familiar with those games will tell you its a slobberknockers everytime.
So yea the Ravens lost. The other team is getting paid too. Did you want them to go undefeated. Lord knows only one team has ever done it.
But where are the steelers now? They are home.
The texans game was nothing like those games and the ravens came out relatively healthy with the exception of reed. (whos playing on sunday nevertheless)
Furthermore, the ravens are better now then they were in 09.
It's very possible that the same outcome will happen, or maybe even worse.
You people are never going to understand this the NFL is about wins and losses. The players don't care about point spreads. Which is why in this case, the ravens are the bet. Because they aren't trying to cover. They are trying to win!
I understand that about the NFL. Every team is trying to win every week. No team is satisfied with covering the spread. If the Ravens lose by a field goal on Sunday they certainly are not going to be celebrating.
What I don't understand is what you are trying to say.
We should only bet on the team that is trying to win. So since the Patriots are not going to try and win the Ravens are the play.
The Ravens are the dog so since they are trying to win that is the bet. That would mean that the easiest money is to just blindly bet the dog every week since they are trying to win.
Why exactly are the Ravens the bet? Because they aren't trying to cover?
Did you read what you wrote before you hit the submit button? You should have because it makes no sense.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
You people are never going to understand this the NFL is about wins and losses. The players don't care about point spreads. Which is why in this case, the ravens are the bet. Because they aren't trying to cover. They are trying to win!
I understand that about the NFL. Every team is trying to win every week. No team is satisfied with covering the spread. If the Ravens lose by a field goal on Sunday they certainly are not going to be celebrating.
What I don't understand is what you are trying to say.
We should only bet on the team that is trying to win. So since the Patriots are not going to try and win the Ravens are the play.
The Ravens are the dog so since they are trying to win that is the bet. That would mean that the easiest money is to just blindly bet the dog every week since they are trying to win.
Why exactly are the Ravens the bet? Because they aren't trying to cover?
Did you read what you wrote before you hit the submit button? You should have because it makes no sense.
I understand that about the NFL. Every team is trying to win every week. No team is satisfied with covering the spread. If the Ravens lose by a field goal on Sunday they certainly are not going to be celebrating.
What I don't understand is what you are trying to say.
We should only bet on the team that is trying to win. So since the Patriots are not going to try and win the Ravens are the play.
The Ravens are the dog so since they are trying to win that is the bet. That would mean that the easiest money is to just blindly bet the dog every week since they are trying to win.
Why exactly are the Ravens the bet? Because they aren't trying to cover?
Did you read what you wrote before you hit the submit button? You should have because it makes no sense.
Spiff, answer this question since you say the Bengals with their rookie qb were not a good football team.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM DEFEATED THE BALTIMORE RAVENS?
Give me the date and place in which it happened
0
Quote Originally Posted by spiff:
I understand that about the NFL. Every team is trying to win every week. No team is satisfied with covering the spread. If the Ravens lose by a field goal on Sunday they certainly are not going to be celebrating.
What I don't understand is what you are trying to say.
We should only bet on the team that is trying to win. So since the Patriots are not going to try and win the Ravens are the play.
The Ravens are the dog so since they are trying to win that is the bet. That would mean that the easiest money is to just blindly bet the dog every week since they are trying to win.
Why exactly are the Ravens the bet? Because they aren't trying to cover?
Did you read what you wrote before you hit the submit button? You should have because it makes no sense.
Spiff, answer this question since you say the Bengals with their rookie qb were not a good football team.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM DEFEATED THE BALTIMORE RAVENS?
Ok, so why don't you do a search on this - The Ravens lost to tenn and seattle after two hard fought blood baths against the steelers. anyone whos familiar with those games will tell you its a slobberknockers everytime.
So yea the Ravens lost. The other team is getting paid too. Did you want them to go undefeated. Lord knows only one team has ever done it.
But where are the steelers now? They are home.
The texans game was nothing like those games and the ravens came out relatively healthy with the exception of reed. (whos playing on sunday nevertheless)
Furthermore, the ravens are better now then they were in 09.
It's very possible that the same outcome will happen, or maybe even worse.
History always repeats itself doesn't it?
You convinced me. The Ravens are better than in 2009 which means they have to win. In fact we should find a special point spread prop of the Ravens -18.5 since clearly the Patriots are not as good as in 2009 and the most likely outcome is the same or worse (because... because... well, because you say so).
As a matter of fact, why are they even playing the game? I am sending an email to Roger Goodell.
Wait, hold that email, what about 2010? The Ravens must have been worse last year than in 2009 because the Patriots beat them by 3 or perhaps we should just call that an aberration.
History repeats itself? Not sure that is true in football since we have not had a repeat Super Bowl winner (scratch that, entrant) since 2004.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
Ok, so why don't you do a search on this - The Ravens lost to tenn and seattle after two hard fought blood baths against the steelers. anyone whos familiar with those games will tell you its a slobberknockers everytime.
So yea the Ravens lost. The other team is getting paid too. Did you want them to go undefeated. Lord knows only one team has ever done it.
But where are the steelers now? They are home.
The texans game was nothing like those games and the ravens came out relatively healthy with the exception of reed. (whos playing on sunday nevertheless)
Furthermore, the ravens are better now then they were in 09.
It's very possible that the same outcome will happen, or maybe even worse.
History always repeats itself doesn't it?
You convinced me. The Ravens are better than in 2009 which means they have to win. In fact we should find a special point spread prop of the Ravens -18.5 since clearly the Patriots are not as good as in 2009 and the most likely outcome is the same or worse (because... because... well, because you say so).
As a matter of fact, why are they even playing the game? I am sending an email to Roger Goodell.
Wait, hold that email, what about 2010? The Ravens must have been worse last year than in 2009 because the Patriots beat them by 3 or perhaps we should just call that an aberration.
History repeats itself? Not sure that is true in football since we have not had a repeat Super Bowl winner (scratch that, entrant) since 2004.
Spiff, answer this question since you say the Bengals with their rookie qb were not a good football team.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM DEFEATED THE BALTIMORE RAVENS?
Give me the date and place in which it happened
I am not sure what that has to do with whether the Bengals should be considered a good team and you certainly don't need to scream at me.
I would have to say the last time the Ravens lost to what I would definitively consider a quality team was January 15, 2011 at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, PA. The San Diego and Tennessee games were considered. I think the Chargers and Titans are better then the Bengals and the days they played the Ravens they both appeared to play like a really good team but both were too inconsistent on the season. Again though, on those days both certainly appeared to be good.
It would appear that you believe that I think the Ravens are not an excellent or even a good football team. I never said or even implied that. The Ravens are a very good team and very deserving of being in the AFC Championship game. What I am saying they are not as good as you think they are and the Patriots are not as bad as you think they are.
You don't need to pump up the Bengals as this really good team to make the Ravens look better since they beat them twice.
The Ravens are not going to beat the Patriots because they beat the Bengals twice, because the Patriots have not beat a team with a winning record or because they are better than 2009. The Ravens are not going to lose to the Patriots because they lost to San Diego, because they are only 4-4 on the road or because it is a revenge game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
Spiff, answer this question since you say the Bengals with their rookie qb were not a good football team.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM DEFEATED THE BALTIMORE RAVENS?
Give me the date and place in which it happened
I am not sure what that has to do with whether the Bengals should be considered a good team and you certainly don't need to scream at me.
I would have to say the last time the Ravens lost to what I would definitively consider a quality team was January 15, 2011 at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, PA. The San Diego and Tennessee games were considered. I think the Chargers and Titans are better then the Bengals and the days they played the Ravens they both appeared to play like a really good team but both were too inconsistent on the season. Again though, on those days both certainly appeared to be good.
It would appear that you believe that I think the Ravens are not an excellent or even a good football team. I never said or even implied that. The Ravens are a very good team and very deserving of being in the AFC Championship game. What I am saying they are not as good as you think they are and the Patriots are not as bad as you think they are.
You don't need to pump up the Bengals as this really good team to make the Ravens look better since they beat them twice.
The Ravens are not going to beat the Patriots because they beat the Bengals twice, because the Patriots have not beat a team with a winning record or because they are better than 2009. The Ravens are not going to lose to the Patriots because they lost to San Diego, because they are only 4-4 on the road or because it is a revenge game.
How can you possibly the say the chargers and titans are better than the bengals?
What is your rationale for that?
Jan 15 2011. Exactly. Their last loss to a good team was over a year ago. They lost to the Steelers.
You know who else lost to the Steelers THIS YEAR? The Patriots?
You know who beat the Steelers twice? The Ravens.
It is quite easy to say. Similar to how you can say the Bengals are good with an explanation point.
That is why you looked for a good game and is of course why you scoff at San Diego and Tennessee being considered better. You wanted to play the "this team beat that team until you get back to the my team winning" game.
So you think the Titans are not a good team and you think the Bengals are good.
You know who lost to the Titans this year? The Ravens. You know who beat the Titans this year? The most awesome Bengals. You know who beat the most awesome Bengals? The Broncos. You know who beat the Broncos twice? The Patriots.
I bet if we go back through the annals of football history your example holds true 100% of the time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kjrpat:
disregard above post.
How can you possibly the say the chargers and titans are better than the bengals?
What is your rationale for that?
Jan 15 2011. Exactly. Their last loss to a good team was over a year ago. They lost to the Steelers.
You know who else lost to the Steelers THIS YEAR? The Patriots?
You know who beat the Steelers twice? The Ravens.
It is quite easy to say. Similar to how you can say the Bengals are good with an explanation point.
That is why you looked for a good game and is of course why you scoff at San Diego and Tennessee being considered better. You wanted to play the "this team beat that team until you get back to the my team winning" game.
So you think the Titans are not a good team and you think the Bengals are good.
You know who lost to the Titans this year? The Ravens. You know who beat the Titans this year? The most awesome Bengals. You know who beat the most awesome Bengals? The Broncos. You know who beat the Broncos twice? The Patriots.
I bet if we go back through the annals of football history your example holds true 100% of the time.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
