d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Would our underperforming D this year stop 2004's boring offense? Our D from '04 would hold this year's O from scoring anything decent. But neverthless, name that score! Would like to make this a poll but didn't find the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
337 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 4-3 2004... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 scott brunell>mark brunell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Obvious Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 '06 5-4. Book it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 '04's defense would crush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Pre-QB switch 2004? Because if it's post-QB switch, late season Skins 2004 had the D AND a bit of a consistent O. Not super consistent but it felt like it was building to something. Unlike this team. Who would have thought the common element would be Brunell? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondockSkin Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Neither. My old highschool team would beat them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 2004 24-10: Portis would rip through our defense while Coles and his lame toe would burn us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 2004 24-10: Portis would rip through our defense while Coles and his lame toe would burn us. I'm gonna go 2004: 14-10, for similiar reasons though. Portis and Coles would do well enough with the 2006 defense, and our 2004 defense was damn near lights out, so not only would they provide continuous pressure, but between Pierce/Smoot/Springs/Taylor, would probably get a few turnovers off of Brunell's noodle armed throws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 MB would lose both games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 12-0 2004 over 2006 2004 promply gets a safety on 2006's opening drive. after that its a bad O versus an amazing D and a lackluster O versus a mediocre D. lackluster O scores 10 points and wins. just for the heck of it Sean Taylor of 2005 shows up for 2006's team on goal-line O and is cold-****ed by Sean Taylor circa 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogs87 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Everyone keep talking about how great our defense was in '04 but they forget how horrible our offense was in '04 (ranked 30). Maybe it was the reason why we want 6-10. So between the '04 and this team, I really can't say who would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seancarter Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Everyone keep talking about how great our defense was in '04 but they forget how horrible our offense was in '04 (ranked 30). Maybe it was the reason why we want 6-10. So between the '04 and this team, I really can't say who would win. This is the way I look at it. In 2004, good D and a bad O. 2006, entire team is sucking as of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 I think this 2006 team would win. Brunell would surely turn it over and give us good field position. A.R.E. would eventually run back at least 1 of the 10 punts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.