SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Patriots/NFL offseason thread
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 9:39:55 GMT -5
Talk about moving the goal posts.
We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total.
So you would argue losing Bledsoe was a massive loss in 2001? I'd argue it was lucky, because his replacement played better than he likely could have. We won the Superbowl because he got injured. If I was an Eagle fan I would feel the exact same way.
The Eagles got lucky that there few injuries were in areas the team was deep in talent. Do you really think Wentz was an MVP type player last year? If so that means Foles is an MVP type player, because once he got up to speed he looked better than Wentz. It was the Eagles talent on offense and coaching that made those guys look so good. A true MVP type player puts up huge numbers even when 3 of his top WRs get injured, like Brady did. You can't just replace then with a good QB and get the same or better results. It's why teams aren't beating down the Eagles door to trade for Foles.
Just like if Brady got injured and we had Jimmy or he gets injured right after we trade him. You could argue Brady getting injured and having Jimmy play would have been like Bledsoe going down 2.0. What Jimmy did on a crappy 49ers team is more impressive than what Wentz did. That's what an MVP looks like.
|
|
|
|
Post by oilcan73 on Mar 22, 2018 10:30:35 GMT -5
Glad to see Marquis Flowers coming back at LB & ST next year. He was a solid pickup this year and should only get better with more playing time under his belt and another year in the system. Still think they need to ad another LB in the draft, but this is a nice depth move. Unless someone falls to NE at #31 I think BB trades down into the 2nd round and grabs another pick with it. In the 1st 3 rounds, I think they nee to draft a LB, OT, EDGE and perhaps a QB.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 22, 2018 10:53:52 GMT -5
I don’t know how much you watch Wentz last year. I only saw 2 games of his but yes, I thought he was playing like an MVP type guy. Is it the system? I have no idea but I saw that guy flat out make plays happen and also make incredible throws. He wasn’t just staring there throwing to open receivers. Not in the games I saw.
Foles got hot in the playoffs, but Foles in 2013 was a really good QB. Then he broke his clavicle in 2014 and ended up with the Rams in 2015 which was an offensive sh!t show. So the jury is still out on Foles. It would not be surprising to see him be a very good starting Quarterback in the NFL if healthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 12:45:03 GMT -5
Talk about moving the goal posts. We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total. So you would argue losing Bledsoe was a massive loss in 2001? I'd argue it was lucky, because his replacement played better than he likely could have. We won the Superbowl because he got injured. If I was an Eagle fan I would feel the exact same way. The Eagles got lucky that there few injuries were in areas the team was deep in talent. Do you really think Wentz was an MVP type player last year? If so that means Foles is an MVP type player, because once he got up to speed he looked better than Wentz. It was the Eagles talent on offense and coaching that made those guys look so good. A true MVP type player puts up huge numbers even when 3 of his top WRs get injured, like Brady did. You can't just replace then with a good QB and get the same or better results. It's why teams aren't beating down the Eagles door to trade for Foles. Just like if Brady got injured and we had Jimmy or he gets injured right after we trade him. You could argue Brady getting injured and having Jimmy play would have been like Bledsoe going down 2.0. What Jimmy did on a crappy 49ers team is more impressive than what Wentz did. That's what an MVP looks like. If you think losing your starting QB is no big deal then I don't know what to tell you. Because the Eagles had Foles does not mean it wasn't the worst possible thing that could happen to any NFL team. They were far better prepared and had much better depth than other teams to deal with the injuries they had. It's not lucky that they had depth. They had it in case of injuries. That doesn't mean they were lucky with injuries. Jason Peters is twice as good as Solder. Imagine the Pats' o-line without Solder in the playoffs. Do I think Wentz was an MVP candidate? Go read one of 5000 articles declaring him one since you won't listen to me. There are a ton of articles arguing in his favor despite him tearing his ACL. www.google.com/search?biw=1536&bih=734&ei=eKWzWqz7IazZ5gKI4KTQCA&q=carson+wentz+mvp+candidate&oq=carson+wentz+mvp+candidate&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.3227.9372.0.9543.30.17.2.11.11.0.131.1472.15j2.17.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.30.1508...0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1.0.h-wfWaNMTFs |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 22, 2018 13:00:09 GMT -5
Oh he was going to win the MVP hands down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 22, 2018 13:01:00 GMT -5
We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total. This is a weird discussion, the Eagles lost their quarterback and MVP candidate midway through the season. If Brady went down when Wentz did there's a low chance the Pats would have made it past the first round in the playoffs, and even then there's no way they would have beaten Jacksonville. Yeah maybe the Patriots lost more players, but the Eagles lost the single most important player in their roster. It's not comparable. This is a really homerish stance you're taking. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 14:22:50 GMT -5
I watched him play in multiple games and watch a ton of NFL films leading up to the Superbowl on NFL network and ESPN. The Eagles were built like the early Patriot teams, strong D, strong running game, but a crap load of offensive talent unlike those teams. It was like combining the early Patriots teams, with the post 2007 Patriots teams. They weren't winning because Wentz was carrying them, they won because it was a very talented team. A run heavy offense is a QBs best friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 14:29:29 GMT -5
Talk about moving the goal posts. We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total. So you would argue losing Bledsoe was a massive loss in 2001? I'd argue it was lucky, because his replacement played better than he likely could have. We won the Superbowl because he got injured. If I was an Eagle fan I would feel the exact same way. The Eagles got lucky that there few injuries were in areas the team was deep in talent. Do you really think Wentz was an MVP type player last year? If so that means Foles is an MVP type player, because once he got up to speed he looked better than Wentz. It was the Eagles talent on offense and coaching that made those guys look so good. A true MVP type player puts up huge numbers even when 3 of his top WRs get injured, like Brady did. You can't just replace then with a good QB and get the same or better results. It's why teams aren't beating down the Eagles door to trade for Foles. Just like if Brady got injured and we had Jimmy or he gets injured right after we trade him. You could argue Brady getting injured and having Jimmy play would have been like Bledsoe going down 2.0. What Jimmy did on a crappy 49ers team is more impressive than what Wentz did. That's what an MVP looks like. If you think losing your starting QB is no big deal then I don't know what to tell you. Because the Eagles had Foles does not mean it wasn't the worst possible thing that could happen to any NFL team. They were far better prepared and had much better depth than other teams to deal with the injuries they had. It's not lucky that they had depth. They had it in case of injuries. That doesn't mean they were lucky with injuries. Jason Peters is twice as good as Solder. Imagine the Pats' o-line without Solder in the playoffs. Do I think Wentz was an MVP candidate? Go read one of 5000 articles declaring him one since you won't listen to me. There are a ton of articles arguing in his favor despite him tearing his ACL. www.google.com/search?biw=1536&bih=734&ei=eKWzWqz7IazZ5gKI4KTQCA&q=carson+wentz+mvp+candidate&oq=carson+wentz+mvp+candidate&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.3227.9372.0.9543.30.17.2.11.11.0.131.1472.15j2.17.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.30.1508...0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1.0.h-wfWaNMTFsI said player not candidate, big difference. A guy like Brees, Brady, Rodgers and Manning that can carry a team. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 14:32:33 GMT -5
I watched him play in multiple games and watch a ton of NFL films leading up to the Superbowl on NFL network and ESPN. The Eagles were built like the early Patriot teams, strong D, strong running game, but a crap load of offensive talent unlike those teams. It was like combining the early Patriots teams, with the post 2007 Patriots teams. They weren't winning because Wentz was carrying them, they won because it was a very talented team. A run heavy offense is a QBs best friend. And a QB who can't play will have defenses stuff 8 in the box until they can make a throw, which Wentz did all season. The Eagles aren't in the Super Bowl without their QB play and they wouldn't have won it without Foles playing like he did either. I watched every Eagles game and every Pats game this year. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 14:35:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 14:43:20 GMT -5
We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total. This is a weird discussion, the Eagles lost their quarterback and MVP candidate midway through the season. If Brady went down when Wentz did there's a low chance the Pats would have made it past the first round in the playoffs, and even then there's no way they would have beaten Jacksonville. Yeah maybe the Patriots lost more players, but the Eagles lost the single most important player in their roster. It's not comparable. This is a really homerish stance you're taking. I expected teams to put everyone on the line and dare Foles to throw the ball and fail to score 10 points. That's what happens with most backup QBs in playoff games. Pederson is a genius and Foles made the throws he had to. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 14:47:15 GMT -5
We are talking about the Eagle vs the Patriots injury wise, not teams in general. The Patriots were hit harder by injuries you can't argue they weren't. Yet you keep trying. Just look at starters lost. The Patriots lost twice the amount of starters the Eagles did. The Patriots lost more starters on D than the Eagles did total. This is a weird discussion, the Eagles lost their quarterback and MVP candidate midway through the season. If Brady went down when Wentz did there's a low chance the Pats would have made it past the first round in the playoffs, and even then there's no way they would have beaten Jacksonville. Yeah maybe the Patriots lost more players, but the Eagles lost the single most important player in their roster. It's not comparable. This is a really homerish stance you're taking. That's really the whole point, Brady is a true MVP QB, you can't easily replace them with a journey man QB and keep winning. We were hit hard by injuries and Brady had to carry us. The Eagles weren't. Nevermind Wentz played 13 games out of 16, it wasn't mid season. An MVP type level player can take an 8-8 team and make them 13-3. Let's see Wentz play without 3 of his top WRs and see how he does, like Brady did almost the entire Superbowl. So either you think Wentz and Foles are both MVP level QBs or it was more the system and talent level that made them look good. I've seen enough of Foles to know he's not an MVP level player. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 14:51:49 GMT -5
This is a weird discussion, the Eagles lost their quarterback and MVP candidate midway through the season. If Brady went down when Wentz did there's a low chance the Pats would have made it past the first round in the playoffs, and even then there's no way they would have beaten Jacksonville. Yeah maybe the Patriots lost more players, but the Eagles lost the single most important player in their roster. It's not comparable. This is a really homerish stance you're taking. That's really the whole point, Brady is a true MVP QB, you can't easily replace them with a journey man QB and keep winning. We were hit hard by injuries and Brady had to carry us. The Eagles weren't. Nevermind Wentz played 13 games out of 16, it wasn't mid season. An MVP type level player can take an 8-8 team and make them 13-3. Let's see Wentz play without 3 of his top WRs and see how he does, like Brady did almost the entire Superbowl. So either you think Wentz and Foles are both MVP level QBs or it was more the system and talent level that made them look good. I've seen enough of Foles to know he's not an MVP level player. We're not comparing Wentz to Brady. We're comparing Eagles' injuries to Patriots' injuries. You're discrediting the Eagles for having such a deep team. If the Eagles had Brian Hoyer as their backup QB, they wouldn't have won a playoff game. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 14:53:07 GMT -5
This is a weird discussion, the Eagles lost their quarterback and MVP candidate midway through the season. If Brady went down when Wentz did there's a low chance the Pats would have made it past the first round in the playoffs, and even then there's no way they would have beaten Jacksonville. Yeah maybe the Patriots lost more players, but the Eagles lost the single most important player in their roster. It's not comparable. This is a really homerish stance you're taking. That's really the whole point, Brady is a true MVP QB, you can't easily replace them with a journey man QB and keep winning. We were hit hard by injuries and Brady had to carry us. The Eagles weren't. Nevermind Wentz played 13 games out of 16, it wasn't mid season. An MVP type level player can take an 8-8 team and make them 13-3. Let's see Wentz play without 3 of his top WRs and see how he does, like Brady did almost the entire Superbowl. So either you think Wentz and Foles are both MVP level QBs or it was more the system and talent level that made them look good. I've seen enough of Foles to know he's not an MVP level player. And you also probably watched his absolutely perfect TD pass to Jefferies along with dozens of other perfect passes at the most important times during the Super Bowl. So yeah, he's not an MVP QB. Just a Super Bowl MVP QB. I'm going to argue this one until you stop for the first argument you've ever stopped in your life. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 15:10:47 GMT -5
The Eagles ranked what third in the league in rushing yards? The ranked 24th in the league in percentages of plays that were passes. Wentz didn't carry them. He benefited just like Foles did from teams loading the box. Which is why Bill tried the exact opposite in the Superbowl. He just lost too much talent to make it work.
Acting like wins and TDs means he's an MVP level player is crazy. It's what the public does only. You can be an MVP type player and get 25 TDs. It's like using wins and ERA to judge a pitcher. TDs are all dependent on roster talent and play calling. Some teams throw in red zone, some run.
If you think Wentz is an MVP level player, you sure are comparing him to Brady, the guy that won the MVP. We started out comparing depth, but you just overlook starters lost to focus on two players like they weee so good, they cancel out the Patriots losing over twice the amount of starters.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 22, 2018 15:26:16 GMT -5
Patriots resign Waddle. We better not see Wadle at RT and Cannon at LT all year. That isn't good enough. Brady will have no protection all year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 22, 2018 16:06:00 GMT -5
That's really the whole point, Brady is a true MVP QB, you can't easily replace them with a journey man QB and keep winning. We were hit hard by injuries and Brady had to carry us. The Eagles weren't. Nevermind Wentz played 13 games out of 16, it wasn't mid season. An MVP type level player can take an 8-8 team and make them 13-3. Let's see Wentz play without 3 of his top WRs and see how he does, like Brady did almost the entire Superbowl. So either you think Wentz and Foles are both MVP level QBs or it was more the system and talent level that made them look good. I've seen enough of Foles to know he's not an MVP level player. So, Wentz was playing as a MVP but not as a "true MVP"? Your second argument could also be done in reverse, there's no way any team's top 3 WRs would play as well without their probable MVP star QB. And Foles is a talented QB who played well when he had to, he didn't have Carson's sustained success because he's not as good. However he was able to replace the starter exceedingly well when he had to and that's why he's now in the history books. Because he deserved it. The Eagles were deeper than the Patriots which made them well equipped to deal with their injuries which you are underplaying for whatever reason. They also got some timely performance by the depth guys. It still doesn't change the fact that they lost their best player, which did not happen to the Patriots. Again, without Brady the Pats don't make it out of the first round because they don't have Foles. That doesn't mean the Eagles were healthier, just that they were deeper. Nobody the Patriots lost during the season was as important to their success as Wentz was to the Eagles. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 22, 2018 16:10:23 GMT -5
The Eagles ranked what third in the league in rushing yards? The ranked 24th in the league in percentages of plays that were passes. Wentz didn't carry them. He benefited just like Foles did from teams loading the box. Which is why Bill tried the exact opposite in the Superbowl. He just lost too much talent to make it work. Acting like wins and TDs means he's an MVP level player is crazy. It's what the public does only. You can be an MVP type player and get 25 TDs. It's like using wins and ERA to judge a pitcher. TDs are all dependent on roster talent and play calling. Some teams throw in red zone, some run. If you think Wentz is an MVP level player, you sure are comparing him to Brady, the guy that won the MVP. We started out comparing depth, but you just overlook starters lost to focus on two players like they weee so good, they cancel out the Patriots losing over twice the amount of starters. Go read the damn articles. I'm not the one doing it. The Eagles would not have ranked 3rd in rushing yards with a QB that teams weren't afraid of. Losing your starting QB is the worst possible player to lose on ANY NFL team. Losing your starting LT is the 2nd worst possible player to lose on ANY NFL team. Yeah, the Eagles are so much f'ing luckier than the Patriots to only lose their starting QB who everyone in football was claiming was the MVP or close to it and one of the best LTs in the NFL. It's almost as if they were as lucky as a team that drafted the best QB of all time in the 6th round and they did it on purpose because they knew no other team was going to draft him before then. Boo f'ing hoo. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 22, 2018 16:25:34 GMT -5
I expected teams to put everyone on the line and dare Foles to throw the ball and fail to score 10 points. That's what happens with most backup QBs in playoff games. Pederson is a genius and Foles made the throws he had to. Agreed, the play by Foles was admirable and Pederson is an underrated coach. I think we even talked about how awesome Foles was prior to the Super Bowl lol and even then it was impossible to predict he would have that kind of game. It was a once in a lifetime event that they were able to pull in that run under those circumstances, which is very respectable. Frankly, to say the Pats didn't lose to a team but rather to an event is a much better exercise in self-consoling than to go full homer and say the Eagles were "healthier" and "lucky", which is just not true. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 22, 2018 16:35:58 GMT -5
Ok can we move on now?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 22, 2018 16:51:48 GMT -5
Patriots resign Waddle. We better not see Wadle at RT and Cannon at LT all year. That isn't good enough. Brady will have no protection all year. Doubt we'll see them move Cannon to LT -- not after he struggled, worked hard, and blossomed into a very solid RT in 2016-17. Waddle starting for us at LT to begin the year is very much in the cards, despite him not starting there previously. Garcia won't be back in good enough shape and Fleming is probably a goner, but you'd think they'll be looking pretty hard in the draft for someone. But Waddle isn't awful - the biggest issue he's had is just being able to stay healthy. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 17:32:30 GMT -5
That's really the whole point, Brady is a true MVP QB, you can't easily replace them with a journey man QB and keep winning. We were hit hard by injuries and Brady had to carry us. The Eagles weren't. Nevermind Wentz played 13 games out of 16, it wasn't mid season. An MVP type level player can take an 8-8 team and make them 13-3. Let's see Wentz play without 3 of his top WRs and see how he does, like Brady did almost the entire Superbowl. So either you think Wentz and Foles are both MVP level QBs or it was more the system and talent level that made them look good. I've seen enough of Foles to know he's not an MVP level player. So, Wentz was playing as a MVP but not as a "true MVP"? Your second argument could also be done in reverse, there's no way any team's top 3 WRs would play as well without their probable MVP star QB. And Foles is a talented QB who played well when he had to, he didn't have Carson's sustained success because he's not as good. However he was able to replace the starter exceedingly well when he had to and that's why he's now in the history books. Because he deserved it. The Eagles were deeper than the Patriots which made them well equipped to deal with their injuries which you are underplaying for whatever reason. They also got some timely performance by the depth guys. It still doesn't change the fact that they lost their best player, which did not happen to the Patriots. Again, without Brady the Pats don't make it out of the first round because they don't have Foles. That doesn't mean the Eagles were healthier, just that they were deeper. Nobody the Patriots lost during the season was as important to their success as Wentz was to the Eagles. Not even close. No, Wentz was no where near playing at an MVP level. He was just the QB on the team with the best record, so people thought he was an MVP. By all accounts Foles had a better 3 game stretch in the playoffs than Wentz did all season. Foles is a more accurate passer, Wentz was barely over 60% How can you say the Eagles were deeper so they dealt with the injuries better? They had way less injuries. Ok Wentz was so important to the Eagles success, yet Foles goes undefeated as a starter after he takes over. Ok that makes total sense. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 22, 2018 17:40:24 GMT -5
The Eagles ranked what third in the league in rushing yards? The ranked 24th in the league in percentages of plays that were passes. Wentz didn't carry them. He benefited just like Foles did from teams loading the box. Which is why Bill tried the exact opposite in the Superbowl. He just lost too much talent to make it work. Acting like wins and TDs means he's an MVP level player is crazy. It's what the public does only. You can be an MVP type player and get 25 TDs. It's like using wins and ERA to judge a pitcher. TDs are all dependent on roster talent and play calling. Some teams throw in red zone, some run. If you think Wentz is an MVP level player, you sure are comparing him to Brady, the guy that won the MVP. We started out comparing depth, but you just overlook starters lost to focus on two players like they weee so good, they cancel out the Patriots losing over twice the amount of starters. Go read the damn articles. I'm not the one doing it. The Eagles would not have ranked 3rd in rushing yards with a QB that teams weren't afraid of. Losing your starting QB is the worst possible player to lose on ANY NFL team. Losing your starting LT is the 2nd worst possible player to lose on ANY NFL team. Yeah, the Eagles are so much f'ing luckier than the Patriots to only lose their starting QB who everyone in football was claiming was the MVP or close to it and one of the best LTs in the NFL. It's almost as if they were as lucky as a team that drafted the best QB of all time in the 6th round and they did it on purpose because they knew no other team was going to draft him before then. Boo f'ing hoo. Maybe you should look at the top rushing teams, they all didn't have great or even above average QBs. Teams respecting a QB and fearing him are two totally different things. The Bill's are just behind the Eagles you know because Taylor is such a great QB and teams feared him. Btw The Titans were numbers one and guess what Bortles had his best year even after losing his #1 WR. |
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 22, 2018 21:14:22 GMT -5
No, Wentz was no where near playing at an MVP level. He was just the QB on the team with the best record, so people thought he was an MVP. By all accounts Foles had a better 3 game stretch in the playoffs than Wentz did all season. Foles is a more accurate passer, Wentz was barely over 60% How can you say the Eagles were deeper so they dealt with the injuries better? They had way less injuries. Ok Wentz was so important to the Eagles success, yet Foles goes undefeated as a starter after he takes over. Ok that makes total sense. Wentz had a rating that was pretty comparable to Brady, he had a phenomenal season and you're underrating him. Foles was not undefeated in 3 games and his play during the regular season was mediocre at best. He got crazy hot in the post-season but that's a job well done by the Eagles front office and coaches. You're approaching this from the wrong angle, maybe the Pats lost more guys, but the Eagles lost their QB (not to mention HOFer LT, Sproles, their starting ILB and a lot of depth on defense). That's so big that no injury the Pats had come even close to mattering as much as losing the starting QB. If the Pats were without Brady they wouldn't make it past the Titans game and you'd be making excuses about injuries. The Eagles ability to cope with the injuries they had does not mean they were healthy, just that they had some timely performance by the depth guys. We have to agree to disagree I think, but just to end my point yeah, maybe you could argue that the Pats had some bad breaks. It happens. They won 5 titles and in every single one of them they had some really good breaks going their way. The Eagles also had some bad breaks, they dealt with it. Again, it happens. What you shouldn't do is assume that when your team wins it's due to sheer competence and when they lose it's bad luck. It doesn't work like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Mar 22, 2018 23:18:09 GMT -5
I've seen some really dumb arguments on this website and this is certainly near the top.
|
|
|
