Eagles are the laughing stock of the NFL right now... :(

Well, maybe the Titans are, but I feel like the Eagles are right there with them.

At least I had Brady on my fantasy team yesterday..........

Yes they are. Jags managed to pull themselves out of a loss to StLouis. The Pats/Titans game was truly hilarious. Watching the Titans being dismantled by any team is just a dream come true.

Jags had to go to overtime to beat the Rams...

rofl

And Titus, I'm sorry bro that sucks.

Did you even watch the game? If not, then fuck off. I mean, is a win not a win? Not even that route, but especially in overtime. They got it done when they needed to.

Yup. They sure got dominated.

rofl

No, Indy hasn't played yet.. remember you guys had a bye week.


*And why did you avoid my question? Did you even watch the game?

I watched the game. I watch basically every game, every week. The Jags didn't look good. MJD is the lone bright spot right now, aside from sparatic good play from Garrard. He had a pick towards the end of the game that almost cost them the game. Good OT win, albeit against the Rams...

I'll break this down for Thanatos since he doesn't know what domination is. And once he learns his lesson, he will just try and say that St Louis is just a shitty team, etc etc, bullshit about peyton manning and then disappear for another week.

Passing

David Garrard threw for 335 yards with 2 picks in the Red Zone. Marc Bulger had 213 yards with one td and one pick

Rushing

Steven Jackson had 50 yards rushing. Maurice Jones-Drew had 133 yards, and David Garrard had 30 yards running of his own.

Receiving

Steven Jackson had 78 yards receiving. Mike Sims-Walker had 9 catches for 120 yards, Torry Holt had 5 for 101, Mike Thomas 7 catches for 52 yards, and Mojo had 5 for 45.

So far, all I see is domination. But hey, these are just the statistics.

3rd down efficiency for St Louis was 4/12 and for the Jaguars was 11/16.

Total net yards for St Louis was 262 yards, as for the Jags it was 492. 500 yards of offense? Nice.

Time of Posession: St L had 24:48 and the Jags had 42:12.

That is basically domination. I'm sorry you just looked at the score and seen the Jags won in overtime.

No I did not watch the game, it didn't broadcast in Indianapolis and I doubt it did in Jacksonville, either.

Domination would be 59-0 that the Patriots gave the Titans. Domination is not beating an 0-5 team in OT. Big difference.

oh.... and....

rofl

The score of a game does not have anything to do with one team dominating another. That is only the final score. It's obvious you've never played football.

This is an example of domination:

Click

Anyone see the Saints/Giants game? I won 5 bucks, but did not expect New Orleans to embarrass the Giants.

The Vikings barely squeaked out a win. Damn Childress likes to run the ball when he has a point cushion, when he should be running up the score. The pass game was working all game for the Vikings, so I don't see why they couldn't finish off Baltimore by doing that They are getting overconfident and cocky. Hats off to Flacco and company though; that was a pretty amazing comeback attempt.

I don't have to listen to somebody who's never played the game outside of their local park. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about and can only refer to the final score for your assumptions. It must be nice being simple.

*I mean, the fact that the Jaguars dominated them, you said they didn't, but the stats show they did, avoid my point and bring up other bullshit to sway away from the emphasis is just hilarious. I thought you were smarter than that, or maybe you still are, which is why you are avoiding the real reasons. Have fun with St Louis Sunday, I hope they demolish Indy.

Well, lets not get ridiculous. Indy WILL DOMINATE St. Louis, any fool can see that. Jags "dominated" that game between the 20's, but when it counted they shit the bed. That is the sole reason I will NOT say the Jags dominated the Rams last weekend.

Hooray for common sense instead of blind fandom bias!!

There is no guarantee they will dominate them. The Broncos back in '97 were supposed to dominate the Jag-Wads, and what happened? They got upset at home in the playoffs.

Dominated between the 20's, but when it counted they shit the bed. That's odd, I remember seeing Jaguars 23 and St Louis 20. Looks like they won, I don't see how that's "shitting the bed".

You just gave a reason that makes no sense and you are saying because the score was close that doesn't mean domination. You guys are both idiots if you think the final score of any game deems domination or not. The stats are the sole indicator if a team dominates another team. That is it.

Still can't answer any of my questions? I guess you are still wrong then, huh?

Listen, maybe your definition of domination in football terms is different than mine, but you are seriously one of the biggest homer losers I've ever come across. Open up your mind. You do realize that you just quoted an upset from '97 and used it as a basis for your arguement on why Indy MIGHT not dominate a team in 2009, right? Get a grip man.

Do you even know what I meant when I said you dominated between the 20's, but shit the bed in the red zone? Because your retort shows you don't. I will gladly explain it to your dense brain if you wish.

I know what you fucking mean! They didn't shit the bed, St Louis made excellent plays in the Red Zone and that's it. How come you can't give St Louis any credit? My retort was to try and persuade my original argument, which sailed gracefully over both of your heads. Please, explain to me your definition of domination.

59-0 obviously is domination, but you reasoning is not correct. You both point to the final score, not the statistics of the game. It's as simple as that. You guys feel that the final score of the game deems domination and the stats obviously mean nothing. It's like talking to a brick wall with both of you. You have no reasoning for calling me dense, either.

Me speaking my opinion that Indy probably won't "DOMINATE" St Louis is just that, an opinion. Somehow you guys can't seem to see that, and deem it homerism on my part and try to spin the entire argument around on the emphasis of..well, nothing.

Domination in sports is when you compare stats, not when you compare scores. You are both wrong on YOUR definitions.

My definition certainly includes stats, but it also DEFINITELY includes score. Now, why can't YOU understand that. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Because they aren't, stats always outweigh the score. The score is the byproduct of the stats.