# Do people hate Chicago that much? Does it burn their souls?



## DNKO (Dec 23, 2008)

72-10, the best team in the history of the NBA, Michael Jordan the best player ever, '85 Chicago Bears the best NFL team all time, do people really hold a grudge against Chicago because of those things?

Do those things burn their souls, or fills them with irrational hate towards anything Chicago related?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Chicago (along with Denver) is my favorite city. 

Ever been there DNKO?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

DNKO said:


> 72-10, the best team in the history of the NBA, Michael Jordan the best player ever, '85 Chicago Bears the best NFL team all time, do people really hold a grudge against Chicago because of those things?
> 
> Do those things burn their souls, or fills them with irrational hate towards anything Chicago related?


Um...wha?


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

I don't think so. I moved from Chicago to Florida and most people I know here have the utmost respect for MJ and consider him the all time greatest without ill will. And the NFL is different. I think most Bears fans, myself included, take it as common knowledge that the '85 Bears were the best team ever, but I don't think most fans of other teams feel that way. They don't have jealousy or rage about it because they simply don't agree with it. 

I will say that ESPN does hate Chicago. They love to promote teams from the East and West coasts but love to poke fun at Chicago teams. The only guy on ESPN that gives our teams any respect is the gnome.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

JPTurbo said:


> I moved from Chicago to Florida...


The same thing happened to me. I hope you don't utterly despise your relocated place of residence as much as I do.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

'85 Bears best ever? Not by a long shot. '96 Bulls on the other hand, no question. But I fail to see the relevance here. They poke fun at the Bulls now because they've had high lotto pick after high lotto pick, following a moronic blowup of the 90s dynasty and the loss of a HOF coach, and still continue to struggle to even get INTO the playoffs. It is a bit absurd, if you factor in how Krause handled the breakup of the team back then. Just look at the roster (top 6 guys, Hinrich being the 6th man...all top 10 picks)

PG: #1
SG: #3 
SF: #7
PF: #4 technically, really #2
C: #9
6th man: #7 (Hinrich)

An average of the 5th overall pick of the top 6 guys.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> *'85 Bears best ever? Not by a long shot. * '96 Bulls on the other hand, no question. But I fail to see the relevance here. They poke fun at the Bulls now because they've had high lotto pick after high lotto pick, following a moronic blowup of the 90s dynasty and the loss of a HOF coach, and still continue to struggle to even get INTO the playoffs. It is a bit absurd, if you factor in how Krause handled the breakup of the team back then. Just look at the roster (top 6 guys, Hinrich being the 6th man...all top 10 picks)
> 
> PG: #1
> SG: #3
> ...


Steeler fans... bah.

I'll take the '85 Bears and '96 Bulls as the best ever... but I don't think Chicago engenders much sports jealousy overall... maybe MJ envy.


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

People in Detroit sure do dislike the Bulls team. Then again that probably has something to do with the rivalry that transpired during the Isiah Thomas/Michael Jordan era. I just love that rivalry, but it's all friendly. I have yet to meet anyone here that truly hates Chicago. Everyone wants the home team to win.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

yes, people curse the '85 bears on a daily basis. they remain at the forefront of our minds at all times. god damn super bowl shuffle is always in my head. that punky qb.....


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I think the hate for Chicago sports has died down ALOT. Cubs haven't won a Championship in a 100 years, Bears haven't won a superbowl in over 20 years, Bulls haven't won a championship in 10 years, Hawks haven't won one in a long time and nobody really cares about the White Sox so we haven't really had a lot to brag about recently.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I think the hate for Chicago sports has died down ALOT. Cubs haven't won a Championship in a 100 years, Bears haven't won a superbowl in over 20 years, Bulls haven't won a championship in 10 years, Hawks haven't won one in a long time *and nobody really cares about the White Sox* so we haven't really had a lot to brag about recently.


I sense we have a bitter Cubs fan among us...


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

DNKO said:


> 72-10, the best team in the history of the NBA, Michael Jordan the best player ever, '85 Chicago Bears the best NFL team all time, do people really hold a grudge against Chicago because of those things?
> 
> Do those things burn their souls, or fills them with irrational hate towards anything Chicago related?


Chicago Bears = I'm a Redskins fan. We knocked those amazing Bears out of the playoffs next year. I'll put the 1991 Redskins up against them any day of the week.

Chicago Bulls = The nineties were great. The nineties were awesome. The nineties... Were your only times. As a Miami Heat fan, post-MJ retirement part 2, I'll take our constant competitiveness and our championship instead of overall mediocrity.

72-10 = Great year. Can't say anything negative.

Michael Jordan = Awesome. Can't say anything negative.

Who hates Chicago? I have been to major cities all over Western Europe, pretty much every major city in the US(Except Miami, ironically.), and a few in Canada... If I had to live somewhere other than Northwest Arkansas, I'd live in Chicago.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Steeler fans... bah.


Lol. Another hater. You either love the black and gold, or are jealous. I see which you are now lol. I'm just glad we finally got a QB and have won some SBs in my lifetime (#3 and #4 don't count as I was an infant/toddler). But seriously, '85 Bears. Jim McMahon? Enough said. You're not the GOAT if your QB is Jim Freaking McMahon. One year wonder. I'd put any of the 70s Steelers teams, along with the Steelers' teams that won SB XL and XLIII up against the '85 Bears any day. They'd slaughter McMahon, and no one can run on them either so Payton wouldn't go anywhere either. I'm referring to all 6 SB-winning teams defenses being able to slaughter McMahon. You make the O one-dimensional, and they're not beating a team like Pittsburgh in those years.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Greatest teams ever are so subjective... cant argue 72-10 with a title for the Bulls, but there were alot of other dominating basketball teams that would be right there, the Jabbar/Oscar lead bucks on ovr 65 games and averaged winning their games in the playoffs by 20+, thats dominant, but its all subjective.. as much as it sickens me to say this because they have the most unsportsman tradition the undeafeted Dolphins are the bes team ever right now, the 85 bears where a little before my time but 15-1 with a defense like that puts them in the conversation in the top 3 for sure.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Lol. Another hater. You either love the black and gold, or are jealous. I see which you are now lol. I'm just glad we finally got a QB and have won some SBs in my lifetime (#3 and #4 don't count as I was an infant/toddler). But seriously, '85 Bears. Jim McMahon? Enough said. You're not the GOAT if your QB is Jim Freaking McMahon. One year wonder. I'd put any of the 70s Steelers teams, along with the Steelers' teams that won SB XL and XLIII up against the '85 Bears any day. They'd slaughter McMahon, and no one can run on them either so Payton wouldn't go anywhere either. I'm referring to all 6 SB-winning teams defenses being able to slaughter McMahon. You make the O one-dimensional, and they're not beating a team like Pittsburgh in those years.


You do know that Jim McMahon was a better passer than Terry Bradshaw, right? 

Completion percentage: Bradshaw - 51% McMahon - 58%

TD/INT Ration: Bradshaw 212-210 McMahon - 100-90

Career Passer rating: Bradshaw 70.9 McMahon 78.2

McMahon's problem... and the Bears problem in general, was that he couldn't stay healthy. You are sorely mistaken if you think Pittsburgh would turn that '85 Bears offense into a 1 dimensional attack.

And I always loved this quote:

"I learned to play quarterback watching Jim McMahon" - Steve Young


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

in short,.... yes


pretty much like everyone hates everything boston nowadays


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> You do know that Jim McMahon was a better passer than Terry Bradshaw, right?
> 
> Completion percentage: Bradshaw - 51% McMahon - 58%
> 
> ...


You're not seriously trying to compare McMahon to Bradshaw. If so, you're more clueless than I thought possible. You're comparing two different eras for starters. In Bradshaw's, the defensive backs could maul the receivers, making the QB's job ten times as hard. Then, thanks to the Steelers' Mel Blount, the rules were changed to favor the offense. They were also on their way to putting skirts on QBs in McMahon's day, unlike in Bradshaw's where they were fair game. Just look at the old QB's numbers...they all sucked. Bradshaw, the 2nd best big-game QB of all time (Montana #1), Staubach, etc. All poor #s by today's standard. That's why the Steelers won the 1st 2 SBs behind their defense, and the 2nd 2 SBs behind BRADSHAW and Swanny and Stallworth. That's a disgrace to put a scrub like McMahon in the same conversation as a 4-SB winning QB like Bradshaw.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ChosenFEW said:


> in short,.... yes
> 
> 
> pretty much like everyone hates everything boston nowadays


I sure hate anything and everything Boston.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I sure hate anything and everything Boston.


I dont hate Boston at all, outside of basketball they have had to compete with everything New York, recently they have done whatever it takes to become a championship city. Spending loads of money on the Red Sox, building a great team with the Patriots and taking risk's with the Celtics by trading alot of their young talent to get KG. 

In what seems like less than a decade they have OWNED east coast sports. 

I envy them for having Ballz, while we sit here contemplating whether to hire Randy Brown as a coach Boston is rumored to be going after Amare lol.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You're not seriously trying to compare McMahon to Bradshaw. If so, you're more clueless than I thought possible. You're comparing two different eras for starters. In Bradshaw's, the defensive backs could maul the receivers, making the QB's job ten times as hard. Then, thanks to the Steelers' Mel Blount, the rules were changed to favor the offense. They were also on their way to putting skirts on QBs in McMahon's day, unlike in Bradshaw's where they were fair game. Just look at the old QB's numbers...they all sucked. Bradshaw, the 2nd best big-game QB of all time (Montana #1), Staubach, etc. All poor #s by today's standard. That's why the Steelers won the 1st 2 SBs behind their defense, and the 2nd 2 SBs behind BRADSHAW and Swanny and Stallworth. That's a disgrace to put a scrub like McMahon in the same conversation as a 4-SB winning QB like Bradshaw.


Well, my point was that McMahon was a more efficient passer, and the numbers bear that out (no pun intended). You're somewhat right to claim that they played in different eras, and perhaps the McMahon over Bradshaw argument is overstating the case, but you were ripping McMahon as if he was some sort of weakness, when the numbers show that Bradshaw was the more mistake prone, hit or miss QB. 

... And to be fair, Bradshaw and McMahon's careers overlapped by two seasons, so it isn't like we're comparing McMahon to a guy in a leather helmet. 

We both know you never saw Bradshaw play, so you can stop yourself before you go on calling me "clueless". I've forgotten more about NFL than most people could hope to learn. A healthy Jim McMahon compares favorably with Terry Bradshaw, and them's the facts. Certainly Bradshaw has the more impressive body of work, but we're talking about a single game. 

And I'll take the '85 Bears.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Well, my point was that McMahon was a more efficient passer, and the numbers bear that out (no pun intended). You're somewhat right to claim that they played in different eras, and perhaps the McMahon over Bradshaw argument is overstating the case, but you were ripping McMahon as if he was some sort of weakness, when the numbers show that Bradshaw was the more mistake prone, hit or miss QB.
> 
> ... And to be fair, Bradshaw and McMahon's careers overlapped by two seasons, so it isn't like we're comparing McMahon to a guy in a leather helmet.
> 
> ...


Apparently you didn't comprehend one thing I distinctly pointed out. The rule change happened in the middle of the 4 SBs in the 70s. If you look at Bradshaw's numbers, they're very heavily skewed downwards thanks to a pathetic start to his career. The latter part, after the rule changes, are better than McMahon's, and Bradshaw was a big-game QB. I saw enough of McMahon to know he was average at best. There isn't a sane person in this world that would take him over Bradshaw. 

And as far as me seeing Bradshaw play, I've seen all 4 SBs, along with a handful of other games in their entirety. So I'm not just going off of a few highlight TDs to Swanny and Stallworth, or the Immaculate Reception.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont hate Boston at all, outside of basketball they have had to compete with everything New York, recently they have done whatever it takes to become a championship city. Spending loads of money on the Red Sox, building a great team with the Patriots and taking risk's with the Celtics by trading alot of their young talent to get KG.
> 
> In what seems like less than a decade they have OWNED east coast sports.
> 
> I envy them for having Ballz, while we sit here contemplating whether to hire Randy Brown as a coach Boston is rumored to be going after Amare lol.


Oh give me a break. The Cheatriots are 0-1 in SBs. They don't even get TO the first 3 without cheating. The old free agents, that allow them to look like geniuses also wouldn't flock there if not for the rep they got via cheating. Everything about that team stinks.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Oh give me a break. The Cheatriots are 0-1 in SBs. They don't even get TO the first 3 without cheating. The old free agents, that allow them to look like geniuses also wouldn't flock there if not for the rep they got via cheating. Everything about that team stinks.


I'm not a patriots fan but hard to say that just because they video taped a couple of practices makes them a championship team, they still have to go on the field and perform no?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Apparently you didn't comprehend one thing I distinctly pointed out. The rule change happened in the middle of the 4 SBs in the 70s. If you look at Bradshaw's numbers, they're very heavily skewed downwards thanks to a pathetic start to his career. The latter part, after the rule changes, are better than McMahon's, and Bradshaw was a big-game QB. I saw enough of McMahon to know he was average at best. There isn't a sane person in this world that would take him over Bradshaw.
> 
> And as far as me seeing Bradshaw play, I've seen all 4 SBs, along with a handful of other games in their entirety. So I'm not just going off of a few highlight TDs to Swanny and Stallworth, or the Immaculate Reception.


I wasn't talking about "taking McMahon over Bradshaw"... just pointing out that your assertion that the Steel Curtain would kill the Bears because of Jim McMahon was a silly one... particularly when you could make an equally compelling argument that the '85 Bears D would have a field day with a mistake-prone Terry Bradshaw.

And Bradshaw still threw 20 picks 3 times after the 1974 and '78 rule changes.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm not a patriots fan but hard to say that just because they video taped a couple of practices makes them a championship team, they still have to go on the field and perform no?


There is absolutely zero chance they even go TO a SB without the cheating. Need I remind you that in both years the Steelers played them in the AFCC that they blew em out in the regular season (where the Cheatriots taped the signals) and then come the AFCC all of a sudden the Cheaters seemed to know exactly what was happening? There's a reason a scrub like Brady becomes god-like, with a mediocre receiving corp. He KNEW where the defense was going to roll coverages to and where the holes would be, where the blitzes would come from, etc. Also no coincidence that the OL seemed to be "so smart" in picking up blitzes. 

And lets not forget that even with the cheating in the SBs (I 100% believe they went so far as to tape the Rams' walk-through and it was covered up, and nothing will EVER convince me otherwise) that the *******s only "won" by 3 points each game. The one they didn't cheat in they lost. 0-1 in legit SBs.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> I wasn't talking about "taking McMahon over Bradshaw"... just pointing out that your assertion that the Steel Curtain would kill the Bears because of Jim McMahon was a silly one... particularly when you could make an equally compelling argument that the '85 Bears D would have a field day with a mistake-prone Terry Bradshaw.
> 
> And Bradshaw still threw 20 picks 3 times after the 1974 and '78 rule changes.


We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I definitely think that the Blitzburgh 3-4 scheme with God LeBeau behind the controls would destroy the Bear's O, and same for the Steel Curtain of the 70s. And, look at the Steelers' O vs the Bear's O. 

Bradshaw vs McMahon
Harris vs Payton
Bleier vs ?
Swann vs ?
Stallworth vs ?

Just a few more weapons to shut down there, and a superior QB as well. Big edge to the Steelers, on both sides of the ball. Payton was a stud, but he wasn't that much of a stud. RB is, and always will be, the least important position on the field. Plug and play position as I always say.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> There is absolutely zero chance they even go TO a SB without the cheating. Need I remind you that in both years the Steelers played them in the AFCC that they blew em out in the regular season (where the Cheatriots taped the signals) and then come the AFCC all of a sudden the Cheaters seemed to know exactly what was happening? There's a reason a scrub like Brady becomes god-like, with a mediocre receiving corp. He KNEW where the defense was going to roll coverages to and where the holes would be, where the blitzes would come from, etc. Also no coincidence that the OL seemed to be "so smart" in picking up blitzes.
> 
> And lets not forget that even with the cheating in the SBs (I 100% believe they went so far as to tape the Rams' walk-through and it was covered up, and nothing will EVER convince me otherwise) that the *******s only "won" by 3 points each game. The one they didn't cheat in they lost. 0-1 in legit SBs.


Do you really think the Patriots are the only team in history to spy on the other team?

Brady a scrub? If all it takes is video taping some practices to become a top 3 QB of all time don't you think every team would be doing it? No amount of tapes would have ever turned Rex Grossman into a great QB. Yeah your arguments make some sense but your also coming across as a bitter steelers fan, there is just no factual evidence that supports your statement of "There is absolutely zero chance they even go TO a SB without the cheating.".


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you really think the Patriots are the only team in history to spy on the other team?
> 
> Brady a scrub? If all it takes is video taping some practices to become a top 3 QB of all time don't you think every team would be doing it? No amount of tapes would have ever turned Rex Grossman into a great QB. Yeah your arguments make some sense but your also coming across as a bitter steelers fan, there is just no factual evidence that supports your statement of "There is absolutely zero chance they even go TO a SB without the cheating.".


It's called logic. There was special emphasis put on the Steelers' games by the camera man and the cheaters, so obviously they knew they couldn't beat them otherwise since the entire defensive scheme is based on confusing the QB and misdirection. So when the QB already knows what the call is, the disguise is pointless and ruins the defensive game plan, which was the strength of the team. So that's 2 of 3 times I guarantee they wouldn't have gotten there for. Rex Grossman is a moron. Brady is smart, I'll give him that, but he's not nearly as good as people think he is. Dumbte Fumblepepper looked like a star (in some people's eyes...I watch every Vikings game and I always thought he was a moron who was the product of Moss, like Brady was the first year they had their camera removed, and Cassell was last year). And then you get to the Rams' walkthrough, which was also taped, and that tape just happened to suddenly disappear too. And even with that, they only "beat" the Rams by 3 points, just like in the other 2 SBs they "won". 

Oh yeah, and Brady is nowhere near top 5 all time. John Elway, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw, Ben Roethlisberger (yes, I said it), etc are all WAY better than him. Take away his tainted awards and he ain't crap. Zero legit SB wins, and in those SB runs he didn't do squat anyway. It was all the defense and the SD boy kicking the game-winning FGs...he was more of a game manager than Ben was as a rookie and 2nd year player when he was called nothing but a game manager. Go look at the #s, they don't lie. All hype for the media darling. He didn't put up big #s till Moss and Welker came giving him the best WR corp in the NFL, hands down.

And yeah, I am a bitter Steelers' fan. It absolutely disgusts me that we were robbed of 2 SBs, and all that worthless POS Badell did was slap them on the wrist by taking away a measely late 1st rounder and fining them the equivalent of $1 to a normal person. As the old Hanks Williams Jr. song goes, "I'd love to spit some beachnut in that dude's eyes, and shoot him with my old .45"......that's to Badell and Bellicheat mainly.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Oh, forgot Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, etc, as more QBs I'd take over Brady any day. Moon and Cunningham are iffy, but that shows you just how highly I think of Brady. Not very. It's a system, and Moss/Welker are huge. Take away those 2, a good OL, and the video camera, and you have a very average QB.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Common man, Brady destroys Ben lol its not even close. 

I can understand you being pissed at the Patriots, I would probably feel the same if I was a steelers fan but you just cant say for sure that video taping practices is the ONLY reason they won SB's. As much as I really dont like the Patriots I give them credit for being ahead of other teams, especially when it comes to draft time.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

I hate their fans more.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Oh, forgot Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, etc, as more QBs I'd take over Brady any day. Moon and Cunningham are iffy, but that shows you just how highly I think of Brady. Not very. It's a system, and Moss/Welker are huge. Take away those 2, a good OL, and the video camera, and you have a very average QB.


He didn't have Moss or Welker when they won Super Bowls. And what the heck is a system QB supposed to be anyway ? That term is usually being used when someone is efficient and I guess Brady is. You are running out of arguments if you are calling someone a system QB.

How many Super Bowls did John Elway win without a offensive line that was crushing people, a very solid defense that was forcing turnovers, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe or Rod Smith just to name a few ? The truth is all those teams were stacked with talent across the board.

Don't you think the Seahawks feel like they got robbed in the Super Bowl either with all those questionable calls and penalties ?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> Common man, Brady destroys Ben lol its not even close.
> 
> I can understand you being pissed at the Patriots, I would probably feel the same if I was a steelers fan but you just cant say for sure that video taping practices is the ONLY reason they won SB's. As much as I really dont like the Patriots I give them credit for being ahead of other teams, especially when it comes to draft time.


I'm not just pissed at em. I absolutely hate their guts more than words can say. They could all die, and I'd throw a party, literally. I cheered as much when Brady got taken out by Bernard "The Brady-Crusher" Pollard in game 1 as I did when the Steelers won #6. 

And you put their numbers against eachother. Actually go do it. BEN is the superior QB at the same point in their careers, and it's not even close, and he has much less (no OL) than Brady every did. Brady didn't win any of their SBs, but Ben sure as hell won this last one. It was ALL him. 

Ben has 3 seasons over 98 passer rating. 
Brady has one, with Moss and Welker, and that OL. 

The best comparison. Ben's '07 season, compared to Brady's whole career prior to '07. Ben's '07, with a new OC, HC, etc, and again with NO O Line was so superior to that scrub's entire career it's unreal. And as I pointed out before, we all know the Moss-effect....Bears fans should know it better than anyone (other than Vikes' fans). Add Welker, who is the best slot receiver in the NFL, to Moss (the best all around WR in the NFL) and that OL and anyone would put up numbers, as evidenced by the 2nd scrub Cassell. 

But I'm done with this topic. It always pisses me off and makes me wanna go kneecap all of them.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

croco said:


> He didn't have Moss or Welker when they won Super Bowls. And what the heck is a system QB supposed to be anyway ? That term is usually being used when someone is efficient and I guess Brady is. You are running out of arguments if you are calling someone a system QB.
> 
> How many Super Bowls did John Elway win without a offensive line that was crushing people, a very solid defense that was forcing turnovers, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe or Rod Smith just to name a few ? The truth is all those teams were stacked with talent across the board.
> 
> Don't you think the Seahawks feel like they got robbed in the Super Bowl either with all those questionable calls and penalties ?


Nah, they didn't "win" any SBs, and he had the video camera, which is even better. I'll take knowing where the hole in the D will be every time over a stud WR that actually has to make a play and I have to actually read the defense on my own with no help. 

John Elway got the Broncs to SBs all on his own before they had talent. The guy is just a winner. Period. He's like Big Ben. Not that pretty, not huge stats (though Ben's QB ratings of 98, 98, 104 in 3 of his first 4 years...all of his healthy years prior to this year aren't too shabby) but they just win and do a lot with very little to work with. I realize you're only 21, so you wouldn't have a clue about any of that. I grew up watching the Broncs and Elway, so I have seen all the phases they went through. 

As far as systems go, Denver is a perfect example. Their system for running the ball....well, their old system till they let another classless Bellicheat loser ruin the team and ship off the franchise QB. But any running back could go there and succeed. That's what New England is with QBs. They have the OL and WRs, so any QB could succeed....kinda like MN was in the late 90s early 00s, with Moss, Carter and that OL....but MN didn't have a D and the Cheatriots do. Prior to Moss/Welker, they had a video camera, which is better yet.

I know the Seahags do. The walrus complained non stop. Every call in that SB was close and reasonable aside from the one for clipping on Hasselbeck, which was irrelevant as it had no impact on the game. They let a lot of blatant holds go that didn't get called, where our LBs were in a sleeper hold (that's common though).


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

As an outsider, let me say the following:

1. I have a soft spot for the Bulls (huge MJ fan as a kid), despite being a Magic fan.
2. I am indifferent to the Bears.
3. I am indifferent to the White Sox. Ozzie's a funny guy, though.
4. I dislike the Cubs. Too whiney for my tastes.
5. The city itself sounds like a pretty nice place. Not like any major city in Florida, but still :evil:


----------

