BBach04

back when he came back against the bills on sunday night my buddy played me a clip from a radio station (i'm not from buffalo so i don't know the stations and what not) but it was absolutely hillarious, mocking how he made a sack, ran into the parking lot and saved a little of kittens out of a burning car, then he was a horse in the kentucky derby. reallll funny stuff, does anyone have a link, a friend of mine was asking abotu it the other day and i was upset that i didn't have it anymore.

the chargers were soft because they played 4 games against the nfc west jack@ss. They beat the bag out of sf, arizona, seattle, and st. louis. Thats 4-0, and only one was close. You are completely retarded. Last year the lowest seed ever in the afc went in and beat the sh-- outta the nfc, I almost wish the pats would have won so we could see it again this year. go eat dog sh--.

you convinced me man, all along i thought that baltimore and their dynamic offense were going to smoke the best qb of all time, and i also thought that the chargers and their rookie qb (starting wise) were goign to handle the 3x champion pats. It just doesn't make sense, the sky is falling, my balls are shrinking, the world is over and the afc blows because of these namath-like upsets, clearly the cream of the crop in the afc is insufficient to possibly the pop warner team in my home town. Nothing like letting a former 3-13 team into the conference title game. That would never show weakness for a conference, or letting grossman into the title game. Those two teams can't be stopped and i'm gonna ride the gravy train all the way to south beach baby, i'll also challenege anyone to a bet that thinks their manly afc can hang with the big boys of the national conference. Screw your heads on straight guys!!!its effin obvious!!

thank ya much, new season ticket holder as well (been wanting to for a while but finally got the time to do it now that i'm done playing myself) and i gotta go down to the watering hole bc this guy crayonz won't respond tonight.

you just can't even be serious with your post crayonz. The more stuff i look at the more retarded you seem. the nfc had one team with a winning record against the afc. let me repeat that, ONE TEAM. That team happens to be dallas and if you watch any football like you claim you'll know that in their last game of the season they lost to the worst team in the NFC. Good thing detroit was on their schedule or else it would have been better and then you would consider them bad right? In fact i'm watching dallas play right now and i've seen better play on thanksgiving day up at the old high school field. Now back to the point: Nfc teams with winning records against afc teams: one: dallas 3-1 Afc teams with winning records against nfc teams: nine: NE 4-0 NYJ 3-1 Miami 3-1 Balt 3-1 Tenn 3-1 Jax 3-1 SD 4-0 KC 4-0 Indy 3-1 Conclusion: The teams with great records in the afc have nfc teams on their schedule that they could beat the absolute poop out of or else their record woudln't be good. Its not bc they were beating up on bad afc teams they were beating up on nfc teams. its only 25% of the schedule but the afc dominated them so badly in that 25% that i can't see how you are even smart enough to have a job and make a living. Please defend yourself. Also if you see when i became a member i just joined to write these two posts and i am absolutely looking forward to your reply.

crayonz, i normally don't post i just get on to pick up and see if there is any information about the bills but you got me so worked up i had to make a post, and please reply to me personally if you would and answer my questions. 1) how do you justify this when the afc had the better record vs. the nfc? 2) how do you not consider the nfc teams beating up on washington, tampa, atlanta, THE LIONS, THE LIONS, THE GOD DA**ED LIONS!!!!, the vikings, and even the giants (yea i'll put the giants in this bc the way they lost to tennesee among other teams just makes them bad) any different than the good afc teams beating up on the bad afc teams? I can't think of two bad afc teams besides cleveland, oakland, and maybe texas. 3) this will take me forever but i'll do it, and it just goes to prove number 1 a little more Buffalo: .438 Miami: .375 New england: .750 NYJ: .625 Baltimore: .812 Cincy: .500 Pitt: .500 Cleveland: .250 Houton: .375 Indy: .750 Jax: .500 Tenn: .500 Denver: .562 KC: .562 Oak: .125 SD: .875 AVERAGE: .531 Philly: .625 Dallas: .562 NYG: .500 Wash: .312 Chic: .812 GB: .500 Minn. .375 Detroit: .188 NO: .625 Carolina: .500 ATL: .438 TB: .250 Seattle: .562 St. Louis: .500 San Fran: .438 Arizona: .312 AVERAGE: .468 Now how does the average winning percentage in the afc obliterate that of the nfc? Because heads up the afc dominated the nfc. Now i'll give credability to your argument that the afc dominant teams (sd, indy, balt, etc.) get a lot of wins against lower teams in that division and it improves their records. that is because the elite teams in the afc are good enough to make the decent teams look badly. it is fairly impossible to argue seeing as the afc has a higher winning percentage. And because I know you'll say "they're winning percentage is better becasue they play bad teams" i'll go into this as well since you coudln't understand the numbers that jibs shot your way. if there were no non conference games the average winning percentage for each conference would be .500 because every game played needs a winner and a loser. Lets make up a pretend league it has four teams. team A and team B in the afc and team C and team D in the nfc. They play a ten game schedule and in the AFC team A goes 10-0 and team B goes 0-10. In the NFC team C goes 5-5 as does team D. This makes the afc's winning percentage .500 (10-10) and the nfc's winning percentage .500 (10-10). Now let me explain to you how they can become different. The next season they decide to have some crossover games. 4 to be exact. In the AFC team A goes 13-1 and team B goes 3-11. This means that combined they went 6-2 vs. the NFC. In the NFC team C goes 6-8 as does team D. this makes the winning percentage for the AFC .571 (16-12). The winning percentage of the NFC is .428 (12-16) Now you could say that the afc is the lesser conference here because team A beat the bag out of team B but their winning percentage is better because even team B won against the other conference. Even though the NFC's records were more equal it does not mean that they are better, it means they are equally worse than the afc. I don't see how you could possibly read this and have it not make sense. And to many of you others who've also replied, thanks for putting things so clearly, although crayonz did not understand the numbers i certainly did.