Tennessee Titans Wide Receiver Woes

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by goTitans.com, Aug 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Overalls

    Overalls Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,501

    I would be surprised if any Titans "back" gets more than 700 yards rushing.

    Man it's fun to make completely baseless post. No wonder SOME people like to do it so often
    #21
  2. titanbuoy

    titanbuoy medium rare ®

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,354
    Shouldn't you be off somewhere giving Marie Toe Williams a pedicure?
    #22
  3. SEC 330 BIPOLAR

    SEC 330 BIPOLAR jive turkey

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,087
    uh... since we have an apparent thread jacking to the
    Texans O-line as the thread focal point :crazy:
    I'll just throw this out there.

    In Indy-Houston series...:coltssuk:

    Houston Texans are the first team since 1928 that
    a team has gone through the first six games without
    ever leading in any of those games.


    :bs:

    Seems the Texans have never led let alone beat the Colts...
    not that it matters...
    but we aren't in a thread about the Texans pathetic O-line either.
    This ain't about our pathetic O-line...
    It's about our pathetic receiver corp
    so just take those bunk rankings and run with it...
    no one cares who Houston took in the draft to
    improve it's pathetic O-line anyways.:boom:
    #23
  4. Overalls

    Overalls Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,501
    Yeah it's a thread about the Titans pathetic WRs. Don't change the subject to that pathetic Texans team.





    Although they are still going to sweep the Titans
    #24
  5. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    26,448
    just like last year
    #25
  6. SEC 330 BIPOLAR

    SEC 330 BIPOLAR jive turkey

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,087
    We're having fun now!

    pathetic Texans team.. (snicker, snicker)

    Texans O-line is still pathetic... draft picks or no draft picks.

    [​IMG] <--click this
    #26
  7. Overalls

    Overalls Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,501

    No. Like the year before.:thumb:
    #27
  8. Blazing Arrow

    Blazing Arrow The 12th man

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,650
    completely baseless? How do you figure. The Texans are starting 2 rookie O-lineman’s which i stated in my post. Just because you choose not to read the entire post does not make what I said baseless.

    Just because you are a homer for a team who touts a season of 7-9 as being an example of there greatness does not mean you have any football knowledge at all. You are making a pretty baseless accusation to say 2 3rd round draft picks will pick up the the game and improve a line that in the last 4 seasons has given up the #1 and #2 most sacks ever. Give me one example of a team that has brought in two rookies on there line and not struggled in the pass or run game?

    .... ???? ..... right.

    Since you missed it, here is the line prior to the one you decided to pick out of my last post. Hunting and pecking which you seem pretty good at does not work in typing and it does not work in posting. It just makes you look weak and like you can not read.
    #28
  9. Overalls

    Overalls Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,501
    Look
    1) we are NOT starting 2 rookie O-lineman as of now.

    2) The other changes that have been made have been pointed out MANY, MANY times.

    3) Just year before last we gave up less than 40 sacks

    4) Why do you keep changing the subject.
    #29
  10. GoT

    GoT Strength and Honor Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    27,214
    I agree completly, now we will both be banished - lol

    looks like McMVP had 12m reasons for playing in such a selfish manner



    How badly is the cows DDavis gurting????? I heard a snippet on the radio as I was comming into work
    #30
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.