PDA

View Full Version : ATF Fantasy Football Final Results


Stoke
12-26-2006, 05:47 AM
Congratulations go to Giantkiller for winning the ATF Bowl. He edged Dane 67-63 in a close championship game. Belenos rebounded from a rough stretch earlier in the season to upset Cannonball in a real squeaker in the 3rd place game. The game ended in a tie but Bel is awarded the win based on total points scored in the season.

Thanks to all that participated!

SilverTalon
12-26-2006, 06:51 AM
Yay Giantkiller!

So are the reports of Stoke and Banne being fired for having worse records than the team with no coach true? :D

Stoke
12-26-2006, 07:13 AM
It is entirely possible.

SilverTalon
12-26-2006, 07:19 AM
I hear Alabama is still looking for a coach...maybe you guys should put in there. :)

Banne
12-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Yeah, Yeah, I stopped caring after a while and played all bears all the time, and as we all know, Mr. Gross-man has given me quite a few games with -5, or -10 (at his worst), kinda like Philly Rivers is doing right now for the Charges. 1-11 to start a game passing is really terrible...
Now for real football.

The NFL has figured out Tony Romo. He is showing why he was undrafted. Cowboys make an early exit.

In the End: Chargers - Bears (Who just barely beat the saints to get in), Bears 27 (Hester TD, Berrian Long TD, Jones TD, 2 Gould Specials) - Chargers 21 (3 from undoubtedly one of the best RBs in NFL history, as he is out to prove, and has done a great job of so far, LT)

Silver owes me $$$ when this happens.

Stoke
12-26-2006, 02:52 PM
Sorry..but the NFL has figured out the Bears....

SilverTalon
12-26-2006, 04:31 PM
I'd give Dallas the nod before I'd give the Bears the nod, and I wouldn't give the Cowboys the nod at all after that flat performance. Lovie Smith is too busy hiding behind their record, hoping that nobody notices how remarkably inconsistent their offense is and how depleted their defense is. The Bears might have been able to pull a Ravens and win on defense with an inept offense, but not anymore. We know Seattle isn't a threat with the eggs they're laying, and I doubt the TBA 8-8 wild card will pull it off, but both New Orleans and Philadelphia are playing much better football than the Bears have. I'd give the nod more to New Orleans though with the Reggie Bush factor and how difficult it is to account for him in addition to the other weapons the Saints have.

The Bears will make it to the NFC Championship game most likely. I doubt they make it to the Super Bowl but they have shown nothing flashy in big games and looked incredibly bad against even worse teams. The Bears are more paper tigers than the Cowboys ever dreamed of since at least the Cowboys can claim to have been in games against playoff-caliber teams, even if they lost they know what it's about...they've been tested and know that they need to step up. When are the Bears going to get that gut check? Playoffs is a bad time to find out you're playing too far above your head since a bad game there means you watch the Super Bowl at home. The Bears have proven nothing, and in my opinion, that's what they're going to accomplish in the playoffs.

Granted, 31 teams in the league finish their seasons accomplishing effectively nothing...but the Bears seem to wander around like they did something by walking through possibly the easiest schedule in league history. As Tony Kornheiser quipped "My dog could go through that schedule and win a few of those games".

I don't see anything in the NFC to compete with the AFC at the moment barring meltdown by the AFC champ in the Super Bowl. The Ravens and the Chargers are playing football the Bears can only dream about, and that's championship-caliber football.

Stoke
12-26-2006, 04:38 PM
My money is on the 'Aints to go to the 'Bowl.....

Banne
12-26-2006, 06:19 PM
Sorry..but the NFL has figured out the Bears....

Thats why they are 13-2. Yeah, totally figured out. We are winning games without a defense now. At all. NONE. So eat me.

Ohh and dont give me crap about barely beating the lions. We played our ENTIRE second team the entire second half of that game, and like I said, we dont have a defense. For gods sake Hester was playing DB, which he cant do in the NFL.

SilverTalon
12-26-2006, 07:03 PM
This the same team that needed overtime to beat the third-string Bucs QB after blowing a massive lead? The team that woofed against the Miami Dolphins?

The Bears have gotten lucky against bad teams. Like I said, one of those games against a team that can win in the playoffs and the Bears are done.

Stoke
12-26-2006, 07:18 PM
Just some quotes from around the web (not just random crap but from major Sports Websites - ESPN, CNN/SI, FoxSports, etc.). Again, just opinions but they all say about the same thing.....

Hard to read much into what happened at Ford Field, struggling to beat a bad team in a meaningless game.

The Skinny: Oh-oh... Griese for Grossman before the game was decided? The Bears insist it was just part of a master plan to get Brian Griese some work. And it's true that this wasn't a game they had to win. But still...

The Chicago Bears (9-1) have been in the middle of a lot of controversey lately. They're the "Best in the NFC to some, but not so to others. They've posted a 9-1 record that isn't squeeky clean by any means. They've been labeled the "Best in the NFC" after destroying a few mediocre-to-supbar teams, but have come close to losing a few games to teams that other NFC teams have annialted. The defense has kept them atop the race for home-field advantage in the NFC. If the defense were not as strong the Bears very possibly could be 6-4 right now along with the five other 6-4 NFC teams. They're pretty much gauranteed a playoff spot, but once they get there will they be ready after playing so many mediocre-to-supbar teams? The combined record of the teams they've beaten is 42-58. Take out the injury-plagued Giants team and the also injury-plagued Seahawks, and the combined record of the teams the Bears have beaten goes to a measley 30-50 record. The combined record of the remaining six teams is 24-36. They'll get to the playoffs, but they better get ready to play with the big boys or they might go home early.

Could it be that all the hype surrounding the Chicago Bears is nothing more than media fluff? I predicted earlier this season in my blog that I felt the Chicago Bears were overrated. I based this information on the Bears carrying the NFL's weakest schedule. Yeah, they can domminate teams--with 3 wins or less (except for the Dolphins)--yeah their D looks pretty good on paper, but LOOK who they are playing against!
In a weak conference this year, anybody can look good. Green Bay, Minnesota, Detroit--? Come on, give me a break! Show these guys some competition and they crumble. Miami has done nothing this year, yet they came with their A game and killed Da Bears. Grossman, yeah, he looks pretty snazzy pitchin to Berrian--against mediocre teams. The Bears D--they can run up some huge numbers fast--against the same mediocre teams. The Chicago Bears will make the playoffs, just because of the weak schedule--but don't look for them to get to far. My new prediction is a first round loss. Deal it up to inexperience and stage fright. This team does not have what it takes to get to the Superbowl. Where is the Fridge when you need him?

Banne
12-26-2006, 09:58 PM
9-1? Give me some current news old man.
Plus that second paragraph was some fan's ****ing opinion. I dont care if he writes for the Eastern Seaboard Programming Network, or FUX, or anyone else, its just some homers opinion.

#3 in the power rankings. **** both of you.

Stoke
12-27-2006, 03:45 AM
Its so much fun to stir Banne up....

One and done.

SilverTalon
12-27-2006, 05:35 AM
Nah, I think they can beat the Seahawks or a team that struggles to .500 that's "just happy to be in the playoffs" (oh wait...that could be the Seahawks too!), especially in Chicago.

They might even be able to pull one out in the championship against the Saints, Eagles or Cowboys owing to the weather in Chicago in January. Miami, not a chance unless the Colts somehow manage to get to the Super Bowl with their porous run defense.

Baltimore or San Diego seem most likely to take the crown this year, especially since they actually played some teams with winning records this year.

It is funny though to see him cry about the coverage the eastern seaboard gets. Couldn't be that the eastern seaboard has more teams than any other section of the country or that the coasts tend to produce the strongest teams.

Banne's just upset that his little midwest team got lucky with their schedule (and the whole world knows it except Lovie Smith and the Bears it seems) so they don't get noticed amongst all the real teams playing who are actually putting together complete games.

Before, the Bears defense looked like they could make up for the fact that Rex occasionally didn't know which end of the football to hold. Now? No way in hell they have an answer for the Ravens or the Chargers...assuming they even make it that far.

Stoke
12-27-2006, 05:47 AM
The Bears are one of the better teams in the NFC.... but look at the rest of the NFC..... lol.

Lets see.... if the Panthers beat the Saints (and that could happen cause the Saints have nothing to play for and might rest key people) and the Deadskins beat the Giants (which also could happen based on the current Gmen problems), the Karolina Kittys are in!!!!!

Banne
12-28-2006, 01:01 AM
hmm, lets see here, the ****ing original NFL teams were from the midwest, you inbred hics. And ESPN, eastern seabord, yadda yadda, acronym comes from their rageing bias of their local teams, such as the Pats, Red Sox, UCONN, and dicky V's obsession with Duke. Its a ****ing joke, that you might get if you thought about it for a second, which I dont think you have the capacity to do. Silver, our deal still stands, im gonna enjoy that free money.

Stoke
12-28-2006, 03:52 AM
One and Done.

SilverTalon
12-28-2006, 05:40 AM
I never really saw much in the way of Patriots coverage on ESPN until really post-2000. Since 2000, the Patriots have won what, three of the last six? That's half of the Super Bowls played since we dropped the 19. Gee...the Red Sox are consistently in the running for the World Series too as I recall correctly. Most of the teams you complain about them obsessing over actually have a proven history of winning over an extended period of time. I know you're unfamiliar with this concept of "winning over time" and not "fluke seasons" outside of basketball being from Chicago.

However, why *would* ESPN and other sports shows really pay attention to the Midwest when the best the "capital of the Midwest" (i.e. - Chicago, even though it's the eastern end of it) can produce is a football team that'd be better off with 42 defenders on the roster and punting on first down half the time, a baseball team who's fans are better fielders in the playoffs, a basketball team that's only known as "Isn't that where Jordan played?" and a hockey team that's such a non-factor in the league, most people in *Chicago* don't know who they are (Stoke, they're the Blackhawks... ;))?

Again, the coasts are generally the ones to bet on over the Midwest (Two-thirds of the country vs. one). Hence, coverage goes to the teams playing there, especially since when you look at their games they win because they're imposing their will on the opponents, not hoping someone falls down on coverage or drops a ball or gets out of their punt return lane. The Bears have yet to sit down and beat a good team on their own. Everything I've seen from them this year has been "We won because the other team screwed up more than we did". Sure, that's a ok plan for the regular season, especially with how pathetic the teams on their schedule were, but in the playoffs most teams play very tight and very well. You can't hope to have the other teams screwing up be the key to victory and win a Super Bowl.

Stoke
12-28-2006, 06:09 AM
Been a long time since 1985.....