|
|
#1
12-11-2004, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
|
|
#3
12-11-2004, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
[ QUOTE ]
Two superbowls in three years is not a dynasty. [/ QUOTE ] Brilliant!!! Maybe not in the C.F.L.
|
|
#7
12-12-2004, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
joe --
i'm a nd grad... i'm curious, as a pats fan, how do you think weis will do as a head coach in college --s
|
|
#8
12-12-2004, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of odds will you give me that the Pats won't be there? [/ QUOTE ] Even though I'm a Steelers fan, I wouldn't bet against New England. New England should have home field advantage (I figure Steelers will drop a meaningless game and New England will win out) and with the Steelers then having to beat Indy and New England in consecutive weeks, that will be quite tough. If the Steelers do that though, the Super Bowl will be a cakewalk. NFC is a joke and we've already raped Philly.
|
|
#9
12-12-2004, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
[ QUOTE ]
Two superbowls in three years is not a dynasty. [/ QUOTE ] I'd like to start this by saying that I absolutely hate the Patriots. But Usul, what is your definition of a dynasty? I believe the Pats are definitely a dynasty. At this point, they are also the team of the decade. Will they stay that way?, who knows. The Cowboys of the 90's are considered a dynasty and the team of the decade. They won 3 of 4, and were horribe at the very beginning and end of the decade. With the way the NFL is today, 2 of 3, the streak, and 12-1 has to be considered a dynasty, even if they don't win the superbowl this year. Joe
|
|
#10
12-12-2004, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Charlie Weis to Notre Dame
[ QUOTE ]
Two superbowls in three years is not a dynasty. [/ QUOTE ]LMAO I thought Daryn said this. Um, sure, whats your definition of a dynasty in football then? Because your statement is pretty absurd.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
