New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post Reply
User avatar
WitnessProtection
All Conference
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:39 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by WitnessProtection »

He should have plenty of time to Tweet since the Bengal defense spends 90% of the game on the field anyway.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

But when he scores 2 tds againest browns , Its ok to tweet


User avatar
noreply66
SEOPS Hippo
Posts: 287498
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Logan, Ohio

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by noreply66 »

Wide receivers?????????


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

He doesnt lead the nfl in dropped balls. Guess what wr does . And didnt get to probowl that many times without being good. He does have a mouth.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

If he scores tds who cares.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

gahs4ever wrote:Certainly not the Cincinnati Criminals



I dont think any cinci players have killed anyone yet. Browns rap sheet is 4 fold that of cinci. Thas because they have been around longer. do the math.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

Let me explain in simple terms you can understand. If browns had a team 50 years before cinci , the would have more because cinci didnt even have a team. You cant compare them unless the had the same amount of time . Its easy math .


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

gahs4ever wrote:Browns in the NFL 1950-present minus three years = 55 years

Bengals in the NFL 1969 to present = 39 years

Difference 16 years. So according to your math that 16 year difference explains 15 more HOFers?

Try again


True because they only had 6,8 12 teams. It was easy back them . It was just like a divison win.
Try it today ,
Not happening


User avatar
dazed&confused
SEOPS HO
Posts: 9288
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:39 am
Location: Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by dazed&confused »

ace63 wrote:
gahs4ever wrote:Browns in the NFL 1950-present minus three years = 55 years

Bengals in the NFL 1969 to present = 39 years

Difference 16 years. So according to your math that 16 year difference explains 15 more HOFers?

Try again


True because they only had 6,8 12 teams. It was easy back them . It was just like a divison win.
Try it today ,
Not happening


One thing I will say about this particular argument is imagine the concentrated talent level that would result if we only had 12 teams today. Any team that made the playoffs would be a real legitimate contender. ANY playoff win would be very tough.


fuzzhead
SEOP
Posts: 4652
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:25 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by fuzzhead »

I personally think the NFL needs to expand the number of playoff qualifiers from 6 to 8. . . too many good teams are getting snubed.
Let it be 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7, etc. . .


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

gahs4ever wrote:Browns in the NFL 1950-present minus three years = 55 years

Bengals in the NFL 1969 to present = 39 years

Difference 16 years. So according to your math that 16 year difference explains 15 more HOFers?

Try again


Browns had a team in 1946. I guess that makes it longer , deluted lie to sway again.


User avatar
theassassin
All State
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:48 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by theassassin »

fuzzhead wrote:I personally think the NFL needs to expand the number of playoff qualifiers from 6 to 8. . . too many good teams are getting snubed.
Let it be 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7, etc. . .



i have to disagree with you fuzz... i hve seen a lot of teams make the palyoffs with 8-8 record. wouldnt consider that a good team


User avatar
WitnessProtection
All Conference
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:39 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by WitnessProtection »

ace63 wrote:Let me explain in simple terms you can understand. If browns had a team 50 years before cinci , the would have more because cinci didnt even have a team. You cant compare them unless the had the same amount of time . Its easy math .



The main reason the Bengals only have one Hall of Famer is because, historically, the franchise has sucked.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

You mean like that other team who has done nothing for 46 years.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

Chad is the best wr on cinci right now. He is being a team player and trying to win . No he is not the chad of last year and is catching the tough passes. Hes back and cinci is proud to have him . Showing a lot of guts and a desire to win . It would have been bad to lose him to another team. Its just not my opinion, Watch the sport shows . I think they know more than us arm chair coaches. WHO-DEY baby


User avatar
qualified101
SEO
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by qualified101 »

no, not really. EVERY sports talk show had florida winning by 40-50 points over tennessee. lotta crow being eaten around espn, fox, and cbs.


ace63
SE
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: New Name....Same Old Chad Johnson

Post by ace63 »

Chad doesnt work for fox,espn,cbs. He is a team player again and doing good. stats dont lie people do.
You just see it on the field baby.


Post Reply

Return to “Pro Sports”