PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Charles vs. Cassel


loochy
09-24-2010, 03:48 PM
How many carries will Jamaal Charles get on Sunday? Will this be higher or lower than Matt Cassel's number of completions?

P.S. Charles needs more carries.

baitism
09-24-2010, 03:49 PM
12 carries, higher than Casshole's completions.

Dicky McElephant
09-24-2010, 03:52 PM
I think Charles gets the ball 16 times. Cassel will complete 12 passes.

Guru
09-24-2010, 03:55 PM
push

Sofa King
09-24-2010, 04:15 PM
wow, two good polls..

Fritz88
09-24-2010, 04:16 PM
fuck me

Bane
09-24-2010, 04:17 PM
Do we get to count Cassholes INT's as completions?
Posted via Mobile Device

loochy
09-24-2010, 04:22 PM
Do we get to count Cassholes INT's as completions?
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes. He needs the stat bump.

ChiTown
09-24-2010, 04:25 PM
This is a trick poll, isn't it? The answer is neither. Cassel will go 0-fer and Jamaal will be donating his carries to science.......

Bane
09-24-2010, 04:26 PM
Yes. He needs the stat bump.

Bumped off maybe.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-24-2010, 08:20 PM
Charles easy.

Reaper16
09-24-2010, 08:30 PM
Cassel gets more completions. Why? Because of the super secret gameplan. People will be all "Why isn't Charles on the field?" And then a shadowy figure appears from the tunnel. JR's voice comes in out of nowhere, booming: "Bah God, King! Is that... is that... YES! IT'S LANCE LONG!" And Cassel will have 19 completed passes, 13 of which are for 0-2 yards.

MahiMike
09-24-2010, 08:54 PM
ooh, that's a good one. I think there may be more points scored than people think. Cassel 20 completions.

bevischief
09-24-2010, 09:09 PM
Really?

Pioli Zombie
09-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Charles carries, Cassel completions, or cocks sucked by Bishop Eddie Long this month.

Smed1065
09-24-2010, 11:43 PM
Charles carries, Cassel completions, or cocks sucked by Pioli Zombie this month.

FYP.

DaFace
09-24-2010, 11:44 PM
wow, two good polls..

Agreed. Both have been quality, both from an entertainment and actual consideration prospective.