PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Anything Is Possible


Count Alex's Losses
11-22-2009, 11:03 PM
http://kan.scout.com/2/922451.html

I was wrong.

In beating the Pittsburgh Steelers 27-24, the Chiefs proved one thing Sunday – anything is possible. Even when no one gives you a chance to win against the defending Super Bowl Champions, with the right amount of talent, heart, luck and strategy, it can be done.

Not only did the Chiefs meet the challenge laid before them in our Sunday preview, they obliterated it, scoring two offensive touchdowns, tacking on two field goals, and accomplishing those feats in a manner that defied expectation. Kansas City’s offense thrived on the big play. There were no 12-play drives. These Chiefs were playing fast-break football, the kind the Steelers simply don’t permit.

Jamaal Charles (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4307409) set the tone, of course, running the opening kickoff back 97 yards. When the Chiefs scored their first offensive touchdown, it came on a drive that barely lasted two minutes, featuring big plays for 22 and 21 yards. In knotting the game at 24, Kansas City went 91 yards (their longest scoring drive of the season) in under four minutes, torching the Steelers for gains of 30 and 47 yards. In overtime, a 61-yard dish and dash to Chris Chambers put the final nail in Pittsburgh’s coffin.

Forget grinding the clock down and keeping Ben Roethlisberger (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4314026) off the field. Todd Haley, perhaps sensing that Pittsburgh might be vulnerable deep without the services of safety Troy Polamalu (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4314022), definitely showed us something. Despite the Steelers’ reputation for pass-rush ferocity, he attacked. He wasn’t about to take what Pittsburgh defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau wanted to give him. Haley decided he was going to take what he damn well pleased, and the team he grew up with let their ball boy get the best of them.

The Chiefs answered the challenge and then some. They proved something. Matt Cassel (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4210794), Chris Chambers, Leonard Pope, Lance Long and Todd Haley, all rejected or slammed in some way this year by any number of detractors, stood up, looked the World Champions and the rest of the NFL in the eye and said, “Hey, anything is possible. Watch this.”

Even so, did you really believe the Chiefs were going to beat the Steelers?

I didn’t.

When Charles scored to begin the game, it was an exciting moment. But you had to figure the Steelers would rip up KC’s defense, take the lead back and the opening kickoff would be a distant, irrelevant memory. At halftime, it certainly appeared that way.

Even when the Chiefs tied the game with a touchdown drive and a field goal set up by Andy Studebaker (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4307553), did it feel like the game was going to turn? No way. We had seen this sad story before. All we had to do was look back to Week 1 against the Baltimore Ravens. Despite a long interception return and a blocked punt, the Chiefs didn’t outlast a superior opponent then, so why should that change now?

The game was tied at 24 with five minutes left. Big deal. The Chiefs were tied with the Ravens. They blew it then, they’ll blow it now. Don’t get your hopes up.

Against all odds, overtime began. But remember the Dallas game? Oh, look, the Steelers won the coin toss. Which one of them is going to break a tackle, run 60 yards and rip our hearts out? Brace yourselves, this will be yet another gut-wrenching loss. These are the Kansas City Chiefs we’re watching.

See? Here we go. The Steelers are marching. They’re at the 50.

But that’s where it all changed.

As the Chiefs keep telling us this season, “From The 50, Anything Is Possible.” And then someone’s knee slammed into Roethlisberger’s helmet, forcing him from the game. A few plays later, Jovan Belcher (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4540314) forced Pittsburgh well out of field goal range with a great tackle on the sideline. Then Haley, Cassel and Chambers said, “Hey, watch this,” and 61 yards and a kick later, I was wrong, you were most likely wrong, a lot of people lost a lot of money on what seemed like a sure thing, and the impossible became reality.

The Chiefs knocked off the defending Super Bowl Champions. The same Chiefs who couldn’t get out of their own way a month ago inside Arrowhead Stadium. They did it without their leading receiver, without their leading rusher, with backups starting in the secondary, at guard and linebacker, with slow, un-athletic safeties, with the last pick in the NFL draft, at least 22 guys off the street, and almost everybody doubting them every step of the way.

David has slain Goliath.

For 40 years now the Chiefs have done nothing but disappoint us. It seemed like every pitfall along the way was utterly predictable. The Chiefs would do something great, and then we all waited for the ground to fall out from under them. Until Sunday, the 2009 season seemed like a sad, pathetic continuation of that tradition, orchestrated by a pair of highly-paid individuals who apparently were in way over their gargantuan, egotistical heads (you know, according to some people).

But one win can change everything. If 22 players off the street can win two games, and the 2009 Chiefs can win three games (and without Tony Gonzalez (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4311139)!), might they win four, five – gasp – even six? If the Chiefs can beat the defending Super Bowl Champions, who can’t they beat?

Suddenly, the remaining schedule looks a little easier. Suddenly, the Chiefs have a lightning fast running back, a clutch quarterback, a defense that knocks the quarterback around, a deep-threat receiver, a scrappy little pass rusher who won't quit, a kicker with a cannon for a leg, and a whole lot of players who are willing to play their guts out until the final whistle blows. You start to wonder just what might be possible.

Because based on Sunday’s thrilling, improbable, impressive and dramatic victory – the first inside Arrowhead Stadium in quite some time – anything is possible. Particularly from the 50-yard line.

Maybe there's hope.

DaneMcCloud
11-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Maybe there's hope.

There's always hope.

It's just a matter of whether or not it's justified.

"Bob" Dobbs
11-22-2009, 11:23 PM
So Dane, after today's game, what DO you think of the possibilities for the rest of the season?

Count Alex's Losses
11-22-2009, 11:26 PM
So Dane, after today's game, what DO you think of the possibilities for the rest of the season?

If Dane McCloud can be proven wrong, ANYTHING is possible.

kaplin42
11-22-2009, 11:27 PM
Haley doubters, show your face now?

"Bob" Dobbs
11-22-2009, 11:29 PM
I really am wondering, though, if Dane's thoughts are changing at all. I mean if JWhit can lighten up...

DaneMcCloud
11-22-2009, 11:31 PM
If Dane McCloud can be proven wrong, ANYTHING is possible.

LMAO

KCChiefsFan88
11-22-2009, 11:33 PM
The Chiefs still have major needs to address on the roster (offensive line, nosetackle, pass-rushing linebacker, speed at WR, a big physical RB to compliment Charles, safety, nickel CB, TE) this offseason, but it does look like there are some legit pieces in place to build on from this season.

The $100 million question will be is Clark finally ready to make the financial commitment needed to upgrade the talent level on the Chiefs roster to push this team into playoff-caliber potential.

DaneMcCloud
11-22-2009, 11:33 PM
So Dane, after today's game, what DO you think of the possibilities for the rest of the season?

What do I think?

I think it's highly possible, given the play of our opponents, that the Chiefs go 3-3 to finish the season.

As Todd Haley has stressed since he was hired, CONSISTENCY is the key.

I'd love it if they went 5-11 or 6-10.

Reerun_KC
11-22-2009, 11:34 PM
I really am wondering, though, if Dane's thoughts are changing at all. I mean if JWhit can lighten up...don't be fooled by that fat piece of crap! he isn't being serious, its all tongue and fat cheeks with him
Posted via Mobile Device

CaliforniaChief
11-22-2009, 11:36 PM
Next week tells us a lot about the progress we're making. Hang in with a very hot San Diego team in their stadium and who knows? But yeah, we still have a LONG way to go.

Gravedigger
11-22-2009, 11:37 PM
I said 6-10 at the beginning of the season and I think that's completely doable. We have the Browns and the Bills at home and if Denver isn't firing on all cylinders we can pull one away from them and I think that ending the season like that will give us alot of momentum going into next season.

Anything is possible, if Todd Haley doesn't get too conservative.

"Bob" Dobbs
11-22-2009, 11:38 PM
What do I think?

I think it's highly possible, given the play of our opponents, that the Chiefs go 3-3 to finish the season.

As Todd Haley has stressed since he was hired, CONSISTENCY is the key.

I'd love it if they went 5-11 or 6-10.Cool. Thanks.

Baconeater
11-22-2009, 11:39 PM
Anything is possible now that the defense is fixed.

KCChiefsFan88
11-22-2009, 11:40 PM
I said 6-10 at the beginning of the season and I think that's completely doable. We have the Browns and the Bills at home and if Denver isn't firing on all cylinders we can pull one away from them and I think that ending the season like that will give us alot of momentum going into next season.

Anything is possible, if Todd Haley doesn't get too conservative.

Today's version of the Chiefs is good enough to beat Cleveland, Buffalo, perhaps Denver at Arrowhead and a Cincinnati team that might be in shutdown mode with nothing to play for the final week of the season (as they have their playoff spot locked into place).

BryanBusby
11-22-2009, 11:41 PM
Next week tells us a lot about the progress we're making. Hang in with a very hot San Diego team in their stadium and who knows? But yeah, we still have a LONG way to go.

I suppose it'd depend what your expectations are. If you want to consider progress made=beating San Diego on the road, prepare to be disappointed.

I'm optimistic about the team in the future and have been on the Haley bandwagon from the start, but right now the Chargers are on a completely different level than the Steelers.

If they can at least make San Diego fight like hell to get the win, I'd consider that progress.

DaneMcCloud
11-22-2009, 11:41 PM
Anything is possible now that the defense is fixed.

Arthur, this is NOT even fair

LMAO

Silock
11-22-2009, 11:45 PM
There are a fuckton of run-on sentences in that article. Kinda makes it tiring to follow. I know you wanted to get all of your analogies and examples into one thought. But by the fifth one in each sentence, the reader gets the idea.

Just a thought. Otherwise, I agree with the content.

DeezNutz
11-22-2009, 11:46 PM
Anything is possible now that the defense is fixed.

Nuts clean off.

A new look 34, of sorts.

Count Alex's Losses
11-22-2009, 11:48 PM
There are a fuckton of run-on sentences in that article.

Uh, no there aren't. It's grammatically correct.

DeezNutz
11-22-2009, 11:55 PM
Uh, no there aren't. It's grammatically correct.

"They blew it then, they’ll blow it now."

It's not entirely clean. The above, for example, is a comma splice, a form of a run-on. But you're right, the accusation that your article is laden with run-ons is false.

I would suggest varying your sentence lengths a bit more in order to create a better flow.

Count Alex's Losses
11-22-2009, 11:58 PM
You guys are utterly ridiculous sometimes.

pr_capone
11-22-2009, 11:58 PM
"They blew it then, they’ll blow it now."

It's not entirely clean. The above, for example, is a comma splice, a form of a run-on. But you're right, the accusation that your article is laden with run-ons is false.

I would suggest varying your sentence lengths a bit more in order to create a better flow.

Or you could just stop writing in general.

Either way... its a win.

:p

BryanBusby
11-22-2009, 11:58 PM
Anything is Possible

on the Internet

rtmike
11-22-2009, 11:59 PM
I'd much rather end the season with the team coming around versus starting out like gang busters only to fall flat.

DeezNutz
11-22-2009, 11:59 PM
You guys are utterly ridiculous sometimes.

The only ridiculous part would be you not taking my advice and actually learning something from your fellow Planeteers.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 12:00 AM
The only ridiculous part would be you not taking my advice and actually learning something from your fellow Planeteers.

Your arrogance is unfounded.

DaWolf
11-23-2009, 12:05 AM
http://realmedia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83432081953ef011570b9a9f8970b-800wi

DeezNutz
11-23-2009, 12:07 AM
Your arrogance is unfounded.

No arrogance.

Unfounded? Laughable.

J Diddy
11-23-2009, 12:07 AM
GC, it was a great article. I enjoyed it thanks.

DBOSHO
11-23-2009, 12:14 AM
GrammarChiefs

KCDC
11-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Haley doubters, show your face now?

I do not credit Haley with this win. He has demonstarted himself inept in first half offense in just about every game this year. At half time today, he should have been fired as offensive coordinator and Chan Gailey brought back.

But something happened in the second half. A nobody from Wheaton College got two interceptions and Flowers recovered a fumble. The offense had to do something. Though Haley had quit on them in the last drive of the first half, the players realized that they actually had a chance to win. All it takes is one big play to change the momentum. As with most 4th quarters this season, the team awakened just in time to fight for a win. This time they succeeded. It is the only quarter, it seems, that Cassel is allowed to throw downfield to Bowe or the wide receivers. Even then, the pass to Chambers in OT was a short one. It was the RAC that mattered.

I'm not raining on the parade. I just don't want to hear the credit going to Haley for this win. Might as well credit the absence of LJ. It seemed to have a greater effect than Haley's coaching until late in the game.

ChiefMojo
11-23-2009, 12:18 AM
6-10 is very attainable with the schedule we have left. In my opinion we are still at least two years from being a real good team. If we get to that 6-10 mark, then we have really had a successful season considering our roster circumstances.

Rain Man
11-23-2009, 12:20 AM
Suddenly, the remaining schedule looks a little easier. Suddenly, the Chiefs have a lightning fast running back, a clutch quarterback, a defense that knocks the quarterback around, a deep-threat receiver, a scrappy little pass rusher who won't quit, a kicker with a cannon for a leg, and a whole lot of players who are willing to play their guts out until the final whistle blows. You start to wonder just what might be possible.



I like this part. We're putting the pieces into place.

Silock
11-23-2009, 12:24 AM
You're partially right. After a re-read, I see that they're not ALL run-on sentences. However, they're still way too long, IMO. I had to go back and hunt for the original meaning in a lot of the sentences. Ones that stuck out to me:

Not only did the Chiefs meet the challenge laid before them in our Sunday preview, they obliterated it, scoring two offensive touchdowns, tacking on two field goals, and accomplishing those feats in a manner that defied expectation.It's really just the last part of the sentence that makes it awkward. It could easily be its own sentence and still have the same impact.

Matt Cassel (http://kan.scout.com/a.z?s=115&p=8&c=1&nid=4210794), Chris Chambers, Leonard Pope, Lance Long and Todd Haley, all rejected or slammed in some way this year by any number of detractors, stood up, looked the World Champions and the rest of the NFL in the eye and said, “Hey, anything is possible. Watch this.”This is another example of something that wouldn't be awkward if it weren't so long.

But you had to figure the Steelers would rip up KC’s defense, take the lead back and the opening kickoff would be a distant, irrelevant memory.What makes this one awkward is that the first two thoughts pertain directly to the Steelers, but the third thought refers to how the audience feels.

Despite a long interception return and a blocked punt, the Chiefs didn’t outlast a superior opponent then, so why should that change now?While technically correct, it's still awkward due to length.

Then Haley, Cassel and Chambers said, “Hey, watch this,” and 61 yards and a kick later, I was wrong, you were most likely wrong, a lot of people lost a lot of money on what seemed like a sure thing, and the impossible became reality.This is not technically a run-on , but it sure sounds like one. It's way too long.

The same Chiefs who couldn’t get out of their own way a month ago inside Arrowhead Stadium.Fragment, but I understand why you did it. Oddly, you could have used the comma technique you are so fond of in the rest of the column to join this clause with the previous sentence.

They did it without their leading receiver, without their leading rusher, with backups starting in the secondary, at guard and linebacker, with slow, un-athletic safeties, with the last pick in the NFL draft, at least 22 guys off the street, and almost everybody doubting them every step of the way.I'd find a way to break this up.

Until Sunday, the 2009 season seemed like a sad, pathetic continuation of that tradition, orchestrated by a pair of highly-paid individuals who apparently were in way over their gargantuan, egotistical heads (you know, according to some people). This one actually works pretty well, but I'd replace the parentheses and reword the clause in it.


Suddenly, the Chiefs have a lightning fast running back, a clutch quarterback, a defense that knocks the quarterback around, a deep-threat receiver, a scrappy little pass rusher who won't quit, a kicker with a cannon for a leg, and a whole lot of players who are willing to play their guts out until the final whistle blows.Another one that works.

Look, I'm just trying to help you out. Long sentences are fine once in a while. But this column has way too many. You write the way we talk, which isn't bad. It's why you can get away with some sentence fragments and the occasional long sentence. But putting in a lot of long sentences is bad. In the same way that you don't want to fill your articles with sentence fragments, you don't want to fill them with overly long sentences, either. It doesn't give your reader a chance to pause and digest what you just wrote. You're doing yourself a disservice in that respect.

Your ideas are great; your writing is good. They would be better conveyed and their meaning absorbed by the audience were the sentences shorter. I think a lot of your sentences lend themselves much better to separation by a semi-colon. A semi-colon allows the reader to pause, but not to the same extent as they would with a period. This would help keep up that sense of urgency that writing with long sentences conveys.

Just some suggestions. I'm honestly not trying to flame you here. I like your articles, but I think you could really go somewhere with a few tweaks here and there to improve the structure.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 12:24 AM
I like this part. We're putting the pieces into place.

I forgot about our glorious punter, our fiesty cornerbacks and our head-hunting strong safeties.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 12:25 AM
I like your articles, but I think you could really go somewhere with a few tweaks here and there to improve the structure.

I think you're full of shit, and don't know shit about journalism. Please leave it to the professionals.

FRCDFED
11-23-2009, 12:27 AM
You're partially right. After a re-read, I see that they're not ALL run-on sentences. However, they're still way too long, IMO. I had to go back and hunt for the original meaning in a lot of the sentences. Ones that stuck out to me:

It's really just the last part of the sentence that makes it awkward. It could easily be its own sentence and still have the same impact.

This is another example of something that wouldn't be awkward if it weren't so long.

What makes this one awkward is that the first two thoughts pertain directly to the Steelers, but the third thought refers to how the audience feels.

While technically correct, it's still awkward due to length.

This is not technically a run-on , but it sure sounds like one. It's way too long.

Fragment, but I understand why you did it. Oddly, you could have used the comma technique you are so fond of in the rest of the column to join this clause with the previous sentence.

I'd find a way to break this up.

This one actually works pretty well, but I'd replace the parentheses and reword the clause in it.


Another one that works.

Look, I'm just trying to help you out. Long sentences are fine once in a while. But this column has way too many. You write the way we talk, which isn't bad. It's why you can get away with some sentence fragments and the occasional long sentence. But putting in a lot of long sentences is bad. In the same way that you don't want to fill your articles with sentence fragments, you don't want to fill them with overly long sentences, either. It doesn't give your reader a chance to pause and digest what you just wrote. You're doing yourself a disservice in that respect.

Your ideas are great; your writing is good. They would be better conveyed and their meaning absorbed by the audience were the sentences shorter. I think a lot of your sentences lend themselves much better to separation by a semi-colon. A semi-colon allows the reader to pause, but not to the same extent as they would with a period. This would help keep up that sense of urgency that writing with long sentences conveys.

Just some suggestions. I'm honestly not trying to flame you here. I like your articles, but I think you could really go somewhere with a few tweaks here and there to improve the structure.Is this a joke? :spock: Good article! Great win! Get over it!

Pablo
11-23-2009, 12:30 AM
Is this a joke? :spock: Good article! Great win! Get over it!A bit of constructive criticism never hurt anyone.

Silock
11-23-2009, 12:32 AM
I think you're full of shit, and don't know shit about journalism. Please leave it to the professionals.

Typical shit-flinging response. I wasn't even flaming you, and here you go with the attacks. I could go right back at you, but I won't. Hell, I even included compliments on what you did right, but you still can't even be a decent human being and acknowledge it.

And you wonder why I stooped to your level once and flamed you about your weight.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 12:33 AM
Typical shit-flinging response. I wasn't even flaming you, and here you go with the attacks. I could go right back at you, but I won't. Hell, I even included compliments on what you did right, but you still can't even be a decent human being and acknowledge it.

And you wonder why I stooped to your level once and flamed you about your weight.

I don't have patience for your ignorant conceit.

Silock
11-23-2009, 12:34 AM
I don't have patience for your ignorant conceit.

I think I honestly pity you at this point.

pr_capone
11-23-2009, 12:35 AM
I think you're full of shit, and don't know shit about journalism. Please leave it to the professionals.

Ok.... wait.

A professional journalist would never stoop to writing for a rag like WPi. Especially when the owner of said rag admitted to hedging the articles so as to not piss off the front office.

If you want journalistic integrity, I suggest sending a resume to the KC Star or otherwise accredited organization.

That said... your article wasn't horrible.

HBKChiefs
11-23-2009, 12:38 AM
Honestly I think we can beat any team in the league. Any Given Sunday.

We've been so close ins so many games. I think we will surpass our 2007 win-loss record and get 5 wins by seasons end.

Im very curious to see how we play against San Diego since we looked like garbage the first time around at Arrowhead. Hopefully this win streak we're on will somehow continue.

BossChief
11-23-2009, 01:03 AM
WPI continues with its roll of pretty good articles!

Nice job guys!

Psyko Tek
11-23-2009, 01:11 AM
"They blew it then, they’ll blow it now."

It's not entirely clean. The above, for example, is a comma splice, a form of a run-on. But you're right, the accusation that your article is laden with run-ons is false.

I would suggest varying your sentence lengths a bit more in order to create a better flow.

fuck you grammar nazi

BossChief
11-23-2009, 01:29 AM
Typical shit-flinging response. I wasn't even flaming you, and here you go with the attacks. I could go right back at you, but I won't. Hell, I even included compliments on what you did right, but you still can't even be a decent human being and acknowledge it.

And you wonder why I stooped to your level once and flamed you about your weight.

not meaning to jump into you guys little grammar-battle-royale, but I would take offense too, if someone called me out for my integrity of my profession without true reason to do so, its cool to offer constructive criticism and all as long as its justified, but you called him out then listed a bunch of examples that werent guilty of what you were calling them out for.
just sayin...

back to the royale ...bitches

Silock
11-23-2009, 01:44 AM
not meaning to jump into you guys little grammar-battle-royale, but I would take offense too, if someone called me out for my integrity of my profession without true reason to do so, its cool to offer constructive criticism and all as long as its justified, but you called him out then listed a bunch of examples that werent guilty of what you were calling them out for.
just sayin...

back to the royale ...bitches

Integrity of his profession? What are you talking about? I just said that his sentence structure is tiring to follow and difficult to absorb. While most of his sentences might be technically correct, that doesn't make them good sentences. I praised what I thought were good parts, agreed with his overall thoughts and said he was a good writer. I even admitted they weren't all run-ons. Clearly, neither you nor he read those parts.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 01:45 AM
I just said that his sentence structure is tiring to follow and difficult to absorb.

If you're a third grader.

Pablo
11-23-2009, 01:48 AM
If you're a third grader.Brah, chill.

I'm no English teacher(although I did study to be one for a couple years) but he makes some valid points. Just roll with the punches and move forward. Creativity and command of the language are the most difficult parts of writing, and you seem to have those both down. But your sentence structure has some holes in it. Big deal. Take the advice. Or don't.

BossChief
11-23-2009, 02:00 AM
Integrity of his profession? What are you talking about? I just said that his sentence structure is tiring to follow and difficult to absorb. While most of his sentences might be technically correct, that doesn't make them good sentences. I praised what I thought were good parts, agreed with his overall thoughts and said he was a good writer. I even admitted they weren't all run-ons. Clearly, neither you nor he read those parts.

You said its just a bunch of run on sentences, which it wasn't by your own admission in a following post. All I'm saying is that if you offer criticism, try to offer proper criticism. Otherwise, it can be taken as an "insult" and I understand why he would take it that way. I spend countless time on my profession and hate it when people critique my work incorrectly or try to tell me how to do it better unless their suggestion is water-proof. Thats all, hope no offense was taken as none was intended.

All I can say to GoChiefs is maybe to be a little more humble and open to criticism if you intend on remaining in a field that requires critiques for it to thrive.

Silock
11-23-2009, 02:11 AM
You said its just a bunch of run on sentences, which it wasn't by your own admission in a following post.

It was half-hyperbole. There are still sentences in there which are grammatically incorrect. My main point was that the sentences are too long. That's why I spent the majority of the first post talking about the length of the sentences.

All I'm saying is that if you offer criticism, try to offer proper criticism.

Yeah, I did that. It was after that that he flamed. He was actually fine after the first post. But when I elaborated and offered suggestions, as well as praise, he got all "flamey."

Whatever. This is neither the first time nor the last that he's been offered helpful suggestions. I've never seen him accept constructive criticism or praise very well. That's really too bad. He's a great writer. He just needs some help. Everyone does.

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 02:14 AM
No, Silock. Not from you.

You are ignorant.

BossChief
11-23-2009, 03:16 AM
No, Silock. Not from you.

You are ignorant.

He was only trying to help you man. Unfounded and ill-preparred as it was, that is all he was trying to do.

Why do you let some people get under your skin so easily? IMO if you let the punches roll off more often, you might find the world a little more inviting to you in many ways.

Yoda would tell you to stay humble young jedi...

Silock
11-23-2009, 04:33 AM
No, Silock. Not from you.

You are ignorant.

If you have a problem with me, I suggest you take it to PM. I'll be more than happy to deal with you there rather than clutter up the board with this drivel. So far, all you've done is hurl insults at me when I've done nothing of the sort. So man up and talk to me about it, or continue acting in a childish manner. Your choice.

Bob Dole
11-23-2009, 07:06 AM
I'd much rather end the season with the team coming around versus starting out like gang busters only to fall flat.

Commonly referred to as "Denver Broncoing".

Count Alex's Losses
11-23-2009, 07:09 AM
Commonly referred to as "Denver Broncoing".

http://i49.tinypic.com/aob449.gif