• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Califan007

  1. 15 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

    The 2017 rams that we beat in week 2? They finished at 11-5. Why wouldn’t anybody give a rats *** about cousins beating them? 


    No, the 2015 Rams we beat in week 2. They finished 7-9. Do you give a rat's ass that he beat them because they had a winning record "at the time he played them"?

    19 hours ago, Renegade7 said:


    At this point, I dont need anymore reason to cut him and let the legal situation take care of itself.  Hes not only dead wrong for whatever he did, hes is beyond repair brick-**** to not get the drugs out his house before the cops came to search his house. Jus the weed alone is going to get Goddell involved, that's only a matter of time now.


    Part in bold is both telling and "too soon" lol...

  3. On 11/17/2019 at 1:26 PM, Warhead36 said:

    The Vikings have are 3-1 against teams over .500 this year. Spare me this garbage narrative.


    Can you tell me who those three teams over .500 are that the Vikings have beat?...Not "at the time they played them", but teams that are currently over .500, because that's been the issue. It's about how good teams show themselves to be all season long, not whether or not they had a winning record going into week 6.


    Nobody gives a rat's ass if Cousins beat the 1-0 Rams, even though they had a winning record "at the time they played them". Nobody gives a rat's ass if Alex Smith beat the 3-1 Panthers, even though they had a winning record "at the time they played them".

  4. 15 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

    His lawyer or whoever, claims it belonged to his houseguest. If true (and nobody knows if that is true or not yet), he should probably pick better friends before he lands himself in any MORE hot water. This sure does look bad though. 


    The woman's father also said he found foil with a dark substance (or words to that effect) in his daughter's bedroom. So while it's unknown if she was getting her heroin from Montae in any way, it's not too much of a stretch to say she may have brought the "foil with residue" with her and that's what the police found. Also doesn't sound like Montae spent any time getting rid of anything incriminating before the police showed up. That was some of the speculation given behind him not calling 911 and instead taking her to the hospital himself...that he wanted to clean up all the evidence before moving forward.

  5. 57 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

    Wow... all that from watching a play.


    Stop spreading baseless **** because you read someone say something on Twitter.


    May have been posted on twitter but it doesn't sound baseless. And it doesn't sound as if that prognosis is based on watching a play...sounded more like it's based on info relayed to them after the injury occurred.



    • Thanks 1

  6. 1 minute ago, SoCalSkins said:

    You actually want to defend yourself on Campbell after you were completely proven wrong? Dude come on. Defending positions that were proven to be wrong with clear overwhelming evidence is not a good look. Owning mistakes as a lesson learned and accepting new information and evidence shows some reasonableness. Actually doubling down and claiming you are still right is pretty sad man. Wow. 


    Like I said, find whatever there is concerning you, me, and Campbell. And I will gladly help you find this stuff if you need any help.


    Your argument would be far more persuasive if you were diretly quoting things I posted back then instead of this vague overview of things as you remember it, right? So let's do it.

    • Like 1

  7. 18 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

    I will be happy to document your thorough humiliation at another time but it’s all documented unless you went back and deleted posts.... Just gave you something to do for the next week. The amount of nonsense posts you have which were 100% wrong is mind blowing . At least you’re consistent in being wrong after all these years. Random chance would dictate being right once in a while but you have an uncommon skill in avoiding that... 😂


    No, please do...I want you to re-document everything concerning me, you, and Campbell. I'll help you locate stuff if you can't find it. I know exactly what my stance was on Campbell so I'm interested to see if your depleted analytical skills stretch back 10+ years or if this is something more recent lol...let me know if you need any help. I'll even ask the mods if there's a quick way of searching for stuff like this. I have zero problem with you doing so. I mean, none whatsoever.




    8 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:


    I agree with your first point, he's trolling.  As for your second point, your bother-in-law was half right.


    But he wasn't half-right, though. Griffin's bust status had little to do with his running. He could have said both would bust because he doesn't like black QBs...would he still be half-right simply because one player did indeed become a bust?

    21 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

    Wow! I am actually impressed you can overcome what must be vast amounts of shame and engage with me after my thorough vindication and you absolutely being discredited in every way possible on Jason Campbell. I was not wrong then and I am spot on now. I am happy to provide further education...



    So your memory is as bad as your analytical skills lol...good to know. 👍

    • Like 2

  9. For fans, what is the benefit of declaring Haskins a bust now, this very moment?... What's the reward from doing so now instead of, say, in January or waiting until next October? Do you get a free set of steak knives or something? Is it just trolling as a sport? Is it because there are no ramifications from doing so--that if Haskins ends up being a good QB it won't matter what you're saying now, so why not toss out all the hot takes that you can?


    I'm all for everyone having their own opinions, positive or negative, doesn't matter to me. But outside of stubborn adherence to certain beliefs I can't understand just a blatant refusal to wait and see if a player develops. My brother-in-law--halfway through the 2012 season--said Russell Wilson and RG3 would both bust hard in the NFL, even though he had never seen either QB actually play, because "I don't like running QBs". He didn't see a need to wait. He didn't even see a need to watch them play lol...



    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2

  10. 5 minutes ago, dicksogj said:


    You may be correct that perhaps Gruden kind of faked it in regards to how he felt about Haskins.  That being the case that makes an even stronger argument for doing things in the traditional sense - hire a GM & give him full control over selecting the next head coach.  That would pretty much ensure that they are on the same page or at least constructively discussing their differences of opinion.  Oh well - makes too much sense - they will never do things in this fashion & honestly I am starting to think that Allen will never be fired - argh....


    Oh, I definitely agree with you 100%....neither Dan or Bruce is football-savvy enough to come up with a different template to use to make a franchise consistently competitive and keep it on track from year to year. The tried-and-true template that you describe above would counterbalance some of their ineptitude.

    • Like 1

    35 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

    I'm not entirely sure I agree.  I think I agree.  But I'm not sure if I agree. Maybe I agree.


    Here's why I agree: Most of the candidates who you would want to target would have been taken by that point, and presumably at least some component of the roster was put together based on the scheme and style Jay tried to play.  (As a side note, he was here for 5.25 years and I still have no idea what that really was, so maybe not. Shrug.)


    When you change the HC, you have to, or at least should, allow them to pick their staff.  So firing Jay and then saddling the new coach with Manusky and Rob Ryan, eh, that's not ideal.  So you'd want to blow out the staff and let the new guy pick the staff.  And again, in May, most people have jobs and that's harder.


    Now, here's where I disagree: If Jay just had no interest in coming up with a plan to develop Haskins, and didn't see him as the future, then what's the point of having him around for one additional day?  They drafted a QB at #15, for better or worse, and if the HC can't get behind that, it's going to be disruptive no matter what.  At that point, I might have been ok firing Jay and just promoting Callahan then.  Because if the HC isn't on board with the plan, it's going to lead to disaster. Which, it did.


    LOL @ the part in bold 😂


    As for the rest...if it were to have played like that, I agree. I'm assuming, though, that a guy who is on the hot seat and doesn't want to be fired is gonna give the higher ups whatever impression they want to see from him, at least initially. So not being on board with drafting Haskins wouldn't be as obvious in May as it would have been in September, for example. But in general, yeah, if the FO and owner believe in the QB they just drafted and the HC who is already on the hot seat disregards any real plan to develop said QB, tossing him out the door in May and expediting things to the point that we're at now would actually have been an understandable move. Like the pick or not, it's the HC's job to make sure a plan is in place to develop all draft picks.

  12. 1 hour ago, KDawg said:


    No it didn't.


    It won't die because no one trusts the front office.


    That's not a knock on Callahan's credibility. There's many scenarios which would see that Callahan was totally out of the loop on all of the goings on. But the narrative is far from dead.


    Yes, there will always be some who think every move and utterance from the Skins that doesn't validate its dysfunction is due to Bruce and Dan's manipulating things...conspiracy theorists will always exist no matter the topic lol.


    But the tweet, combined with Callahan's comments on wanting to sit and discuss the move to Haskins with the current vet QBs before making any public comments, would--I would like to think--let those particular narratives of this being dictated against Callahan's wishes and Haskins just being a lazy, disinterested draft pick by Dan to die down noticeably.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 3

  13. 40 minutes ago, dicksogj said:


    Perfect.  Not sure exactly what they were thinking just after the draft & in the offseason with an offensive minded coach who is not on board with a guy who you just selected to hopefully be your future franchise QB.  Gruden was also a coach who was not on board with your most recent offensive MVP (AP) & appeared to be banking heavily on unreliable, off injured offensive weapons (who have subsequently missed substantial time) - Thompson, Reed & Guice.


    Well worth the buyout - especially since he was fired anyhow & prior to the season most folks thought he would be fired at some pt in the season. You can call this bad luck - I call it a horrible organization.


    You're not gonna find anyone worthwhile in May, especially since you're already got your offseason plan in effect...better to stick with your current coach.