What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which team has the best overall offense? (1 Viewer)

doggie biscuits?

  • Colts

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • KC

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oakland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • St Louis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Detroit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carolina

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Denver

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • TB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • GB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wash

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
You have TB and Washington, but not Seattle. :crazy:
TB has 2 votes and Washington has 8 votes...do you really think more people would've voted for Seattle?
If not, they should have.
Can you find me 3 people who honestly believe that Seattle is the best offense in the entire league? TIA.
With Seattle's schedule this year I would think they should have been included.
No, the poll is not "who will perform the best this year?". Therefore, schedule should not matter at all. The question is "who is the best overall offense?".
:confused:
The scary thing is I can actually see his reasoning. :shock: The best offense isn't neccessarily the one that scores the most points in the season, it's the one that can't be stopped from dictating the game.
Really, then explain to me how he puts Washington on the list and not Seattle!!!! Oh, that is right Ramsey is a studddddddddd! And that Portis guy has just torn up the League since moving to the Redskins! I give up - I really give up! :wall: :wall: :wall:
I explained it in a different post. He is trying to get replies. It worked.
 
Granted I am a Die-hard Dallas fan but I'm not speaking (errr..typing) w/o logic:

RB's-Julius is in his second year in a "supposedly" run first offense, no redzone replacement vs Edge, who doesn't get the rock the majority of times in redzone. TD wise I think Julius will outperform Edge since Manning will audible to his quick slant/double move pattern to Wayne or Harrison. Yardage should be similar...so yes I am saying that Julius can possibly outperform Edge.

WR's-Most people who aren't Cowboy fans don't seem to realize what a tear T.Glenn was on prior to injury last year with Vinny @ QB. He made our offense top 10 in the league the first 4-5 weeks of the season. Dallas threw the ball ALOT. Some of you might remember the quote Parcells said in training camp, something along the lines of "with the WR we have, we will make people pay for blitzing us". This was last year..now look at our WR's. Keyshawn avg's 800 yds and 5 TD's the last 3 seasons...granted thats not Wayne numbers but Manning doesn't have a Jason Witten either. Now you add Price who is reunited with a QB who actually thinks throw first and not run, handed him his best season ever as a #2 and 6-700 yds and 5 TD's out of the slot is a strong possibility. You think with these weapons Dallas will run the ball 30-35 times a game?! He didn't last year when he had A.Bryant, Key and Glenn so why would he now.

This is all coming from the same person who was laughed and mocked when I predicted S.Davis as the opening day starter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You think with these weapons Dallas will run the ball 30-35 times a game?! He didn't last year when he had A.Bryant, Key and Glenn so why would he now.
He definetly will attempt to run the ball 30-35 times a game. The Cowboys defense was hoorible last season which forced the Cowboys to pass a lot more than Parcells wanted to.Hence, the Cowboys finished 6-10 last year. If they have to pass that much again, it will not be by design and the Cowboys will go 6-10 again.

If you want the Cowboys to have a winning season, you should hope Parcells gets to run the ball 30-40 every game. If they are passing a lot, it means the defense is getting shredded and Parcells has to alter his game plan as a result which will get you yet again, a losing season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where's Minnesota?
Minnesota has an average o-line, a below average WR corps, an injury ravaged RB corps, and are changing to a more ball control philosophy. While I'm not as high as some here, I will grant you that Culpepper is a good QB, but he isn't enough to make that into the best offense in the league imo. Do you really think that they are the #1 offense in the entire league?
True, they might not be the best, but by not including them and including Washington, your telling me that Washington has a better chance at being #1 then Minnesota?
No, thats not what I'm telling you. I am a master at making polls, so here is a free lesson:When making a poll, you don't include the choices that you think are most deserving. You include the choices that you think will garner the most votes. IMHO, Washington would get more votes than Seattle in a poll like this. Now, if we had a poll asking who had a better offense of the two, I would expect Seattle to win. However, in a poll that is only for the #1 offense, I would expect more people to vote for Washington than Seattle.
This is some interesting logic towards making a poll..... :lmao:
Interesting? Its the correct logic. Why list options that won't get votes? Shouldn't you just list the options the will get votes?
why? its your opinion whether they will get the votes or not. You really dont know whether they will or not unless you put them in there. You can assume they wont, but how would you really know unless you put them in there? Already people are wondering why Seattle isnt listed, that should give you a clue that there would have been some that would have voted for them. As for it being correct logic, that is your opinion, but i will have to disagree with it, but its your poll, so you can do what you want, i just think its funny is all.
Of course its my opinion, but I do a lot of research before each and every poll. Washington currently has 10 votes. If you can find me 11 people who think that Seattle is the best offense this year, then I"ll admit you're right.
 
You have TB and Washington, but not Seattle. :crazy:
TB has 2 votes and Washington has 8 votes...do you really think more people would've voted for Seattle?
If not, they should have.
Can you find me 3 people who honestly believe that Seattle is the best offense in the entire league? TIA.
With Seattle's schedule this year I would think they should have been included.
No, the poll is not "who will perform the best this year?". Therefore, schedule should not matter at all. The question is "who is the best overall offense?".
:confused:
Schedule matters if you're trying to determine who will perform the best.Schedule does not matter if you're trying to say who the best offense is. Its not like Team A has a better offense than Team B, but then the schedule gets released, and all of a sudden Team B is better. Team B may perform better due to an easier schedule, but that is not the question.

 
I know most of you are basing this off last year but I'm willing to bet that the Dallas offense with the addition of Price is going to be bananas!:

Bledsoe<Manning

Julius=Edge

Glenn, Keyshawn, Price= Harrison, Wayne, Stokely

Whitten>Clark

Flozell, Allen, Rivera>Saturday and the rest.....

interested in reading the arguments regarding that...and remember this isn't 04' baby!!!
Please tell me thats a joke.
 
You have TB and Washington, but not Seattle. :crazy:
TB has 2 votes and Washington has 8 votes...do you really think more people would've voted for Seattle?
If not, they should have.
Can you find me 3 people who honestly believe that Seattle is the best offense in the entire league? TIA.
With Seattle's schedule this year I would think they should have been included.
No, the poll is not "who will perform the best this year?". Therefore, schedule should not matter at all. The question is "who is the best overall offense?".
:confused:
The scary thing is I can actually see his reasoning. :shock: The best offense isn't neccessarily the one that scores the most points in the season, it's the one that can't be stopped from dictating the game.
Really, then explain to me how he puts Washington on the list and not Seattle!!!! Oh, that is right Ramsey is a studddddddddd! And that Portis guy has just torn up the League since moving to the Redskins! I give up - I really give up! :wall: :wall: :wall:
Ok, I'll explain it one last time:1. I think that Seattle has a better offense than Washington.

2. When researching for this poll, I came to the conclusion that Washington would garner more votes than Seattle on this message board.

3. Therefore, with only one more spot to fill, I chose to include Washington over Seattle.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along....what is so tough to understand?

 
Denver. It's the only offense in the league that I could see finishing the season with a 4000 yard passer and a 2000 yard rusher. Their O-line has been absolutely MONSTROUS in the preseason, especially in run blocking.
:thumbdown: It isn't even the only team in the West that "could" do that.

Not even the most likely to do so.
I will not argue that Kansas City is fully capable, and perhaps even LIKELY, to finish the season with a 4000 yard passer (assuming Green stays healthy). However, Kansas City's RBs over the last 3 seasons have COMBINED for 2069 yards, 1677 yards, and 1833 yards. Only once have they broken 2000 as a unit. I doubt the TEAM breaks 2000 yards this season, let alone a single rusher. It would take a MAJOR offensive shift to accomplish the feat.San Diego's QBs combined for 3468, 3205, and 3348 yards over the last 3 seasons. Their RBs have combined for 1910, 1728, and 1831 yards over the last 3 seasons. While I don't dispute that Tomlinson is the kind of horse necessary for a 2000 yard season, it would take a major offensive shift for San Diego to finish the season with EITHER a 4000 yard passer OR a 2000 yard rusher.

Oakland... well, Oakland is Oakland. Oakland was dead last in the league in rushing last season, and have made no real improvements to the offensive line. I give Jordan pretty much no shot at rushing for 2000.

And now we get to Denver. They had a 4000 yard passer just last season. Denver has already produced a 2000 yard rusher once, and starting RBs in Denver average over 100 yards per start. Anderson got 1500 yards in 12 starts in 2000, which pro-rates to a 2000 yard season. Their RB rushing totals over the last 3 seasons are 2060, 2238, and 2052. All it would take is a slight increase in total offense from last season and Anderson and Plummer to stay healthy all season, and I could easily see them finish with a 4000 passer and 2000 rusher. I'm not saying it's LIKELY, I'm just saying that they're the only team in the entire NFL that I could realistically see accomplishing the feat.

Denver. It's the only offense in the league that I could see finishing the season with a 4000 yard passer and a 2000 yard rusher. Their O-line has been absolutely MONSTROUS in the preseason, especially in run blocking.
KC, St Louis, and Indy could do that imo
KC I've already addressed. Indy's RBs combined for 1821, 1631, and 1368 yards over the last 3 seasons. I don't see them realistically producing a 2000 yard rusher. St. Louis's RBs combined for 1516, 1370, and 1236. Mike Martz is famous for abandoning the run. The Rams haven't had even a *1000 yard* rusher since 2001, forget about 2000. In fact, I see them as one of the least likely teams in the entire NFL to spawn a 2000 yard rusher.Realistically, the only teams I could see producing a 2000 yard rusher are Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Denver, New York Jets, and possibly, POSSIBLY, San Diego. And of those teams, Denver's the only one that could realistically finish with a 4000 yard passer... since they did it just last season.
Don't underestimate the impact of Moss- There will never be 8 men in the box anymore and the running should be much easier now.
 
I am a master at making polls
:lmao:
When making a poll, you don't include the choices that you think are most deserving. You include the choices that you think will garner the most votes. IMHO, Washington would get more votes than Seattle in a poll like this. Now, if we had a poll asking who had a better offense of the two, I would expect Seattle to win. However, in a poll that is only for the #1 offense, I would expect more people to vote for Washington than Seattle.
It's nice that you think and believe that, but the truth is, not many people take your polls serious and probably just vote for the worst option. If Washington was replaced with Chicago, I'd bet they would have 10 votes too.
Colts [ 80 ] [51.95%] KC [ 17 ] [11.04%]

Oakland [ 5 ] [3.25%]

St Louis [ 21 ] [13.64%]

Philly [ 6 ] [3.90%]

NE [ 5 ] [3.25%]

Detroit [ 2 ] [1.30%]

Carolina [ 4 ] [2.60%]

Denver [ 1 ] [0.65%]

NO [ 0 ] [0.00%]

TB [ 2 ] [1.30%]

GB [ 1 ] [0.65%]

Wash [ 10 ] [6.49%]

Really? So The Colts are the worst option? Or you must be talking about the 2nd leading vote getter, the Rams...are they the worst option? Or the thrid, the Chiefs?

Are you seriously implying that a bunch of people follow me around and open all of my polls with no intention of actually contributing to the conversation or voting for a deserving team but just for the sole reason of voting for the least likely option in all of my polls? I find that rather hard to believe.

 
You know, I think this question is a lot harder to answer than most think. If you just say who scores the most points is the best offense, that could be very misleading.Teams like Indy, KC, and St. Louis all have great offenses and score a lot. But they also give up a ton of points and get the ball a lot etc.....I like New England's offense as good as anyone's. The play well under pressure..........which to me makes them the best. Teams like Indy and KC break down under pressure......so how could that be the best? That doesn't add up to me.It was the same in the early to mid 90's with Dallas. Sure other teams might have scored more points, but to me Dallas had the best offense. When it counted, you couldn't stop them.........the same with New England. That's what the best means to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, I think this question is a lot harder to answer than most think. If you just say who scores the most points is the best offense, that could be very misleading.

Teams like Indy, KC, and St. Louis all have great offenses and score a lot. But they also give up a ton of points and get the ball a lot etc.....

I like New England's offense as good as anyone's. The play well under pressure..........which to me makes them the best. Teams like Indy and KC break down under pressure......so how could that be the best? That doesn't add up to me.

It was the same in the early to mid 90's with Dallas. Sure other teams might have scored more points, but to me Dallas had the best offense. When it counted, you couldn't stop them.........the same with New England. That's what the best means to me.
great posting imho.I totally agree btw...NE is the best offense(and Brady is the best QB) because they can score but they also manage the game well and keep their defense rested and in good situations.

 
You know, I think this question is a lot harder to answer than most think.  If you just say who scores the most points is the best offense, that could be very misleading.

Teams like Indy, KC, and St. Louis all have great offenses and score a lot.  But they also give up a ton of points and get the ball a lot etc.....

I like New England's offense as good as anyone's.  The play well under pressure..........which to me makes them the best.  Teams like Indy and KC break down under pressure......so how could that be the best?  That doesn't add up to me.

It was the same in the early to mid 90's with Dallas.  Sure other teams might have scored more points, but to me Dallas had the best offense.  When it counted, you couldn't stop them.........the same with New England. That's what the best means to me.
great posting imho.I totally agree btw...NE is the best offense(and Brady is the best QB) because they can score but they also manage the game well and keep their defense rested and in good situations.
You will of course get no arguement here ;) And you can add me to the C-Pep side of your sig bet if it is not too late.

 
You know, I think this question is a lot harder to answer than most think.  If you just say who scores the most points is the best offense, that could be very misleading.

Teams like Indy, KC, and St. Louis all have great offenses and score a lot.  But they also give up a ton of points and get the ball a lot etc.....

I like New England's offense as good as anyone's.  The play well under pressure..........which to me makes them the best.  Teams like Indy and KC break down under pressure......so how could that be the best?  That doesn't add up to me.

It was the same in the early to mid 90's with Dallas.  Sure other teams might have scored more points, but to me Dallas had the best offense.  When it counted, you couldn't stop them.........the same with New England. That's what the best means to me.
great posting imho.I totally agree btw...NE is the best offense(and Brady is the best QB) because they can score but they also manage the game well and keep their defense rested and in good situations.
You will of course get no arguement here ;) And you can add me to the C-Pep side of your sig bet if it is not too late.
Ok, I'll add you in. Can you please try to organize everyone though and come up with a sig for the other side should you win...I've PMed every single person and bumped the thread multiple times within the past week...we can't have a sig bet without sigs! Anyway, I added you in...good luck- no matter what, it'll be fun and provide some bragging rights.

 
You have TB and Washington, but not Seattle. :crazy:
TB has 2 votes and Washington has 8 votes...do you really think more people would've voted for Seattle?
If not, they should have.
Can you find me 3 people who honestly believe that Seattle is the best offense in the entire league? TIA.
With Seattle's schedule this year I would think they should have been included.
No, the poll is not "who will perform the best this year?". Therefore, schedule should not matter at all. The question is "who is the best overall offense?".
:confused:
The scary thing is I can actually see his reasoning. :shock: The best offense isn't neccessarily the one that scores the most points in the season, it's the one that can't be stopped from dictating the game.
Really, then explain to me how he puts Washington on the list and not Seattle!!!! Oh, that is right Ramsey is a studddddddddd! And that Portis guy has just torn up the League since moving to the Redskins! I give up - I really give up! :wall: :wall: :wall:
Ok, I'll explain it one last time:1. I think that Seattle has a better offense than Washington.

2. When researching for this poll, I came to the conclusion that Washington would garner more votes than Seattle on this message board.

3. Therefore, with only one more spot to fill, I chose to include Washington over Seattle.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along....what is so tough to understand?
Since you are the master poll maker, explain exactly the research methods that you used to reach this conclusion.
 
Are you seriously implying that a bunch of people follow me around and open all of my polls with no intention of actually contributing to the conversation or voting for a deserving team but just for the sole reason of voting for the least likely option in all of my polls? I find that rather hard to believe.
How many of the Washington voters are here arguing that they are the best offense? All of the other top vote getters have their supporters backing them up, why not the Washington ones? You're the ONLY ONE supporting those votes.
 
Nevermind, don't even bother answering that. I really don't care to heere more about your BS reasearch.

Go find a woman and get laid pal. It will do wonders for you.

You have chosen to ignore jwvdcw. View this post · Un-ignore jwvdcw

Why I ever took you off ignore...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am a master at making polls
:lmao: It's nice that you think and believe that, but the truth is, not many people take your polls serious and probably just vote for the worst option. If Washington was replaced with Chicago, I'd bet they would have 10 votes too.
I think he meant to say that he's a master at making bait. All hail the Master Baiter.
 
You have TB and Washington, but not Seattle. :crazy:
TB has 2 votes and Washington has 8 votes...do you really think more people would've voted for Seattle?
If not, they should have.
Can you find me 3 people who honestly believe that Seattle is the best offense in the entire league? TIA.
With Seattle's schedule this year I would think they should have been included.
No, the poll is not "who will perform the best this year?". Therefore, schedule should not matter at all. The question is "who is the best overall offense?".
:confused:
The scary thing is I can actually see his reasoning. :shock:

The best offense isn't neccessarily the one that scores the most points in the season, it's the one that can't be stopped from dictating the game.
Really, then explain to me how he puts Washington on the list and not Seattle!!!! Oh, that is right Ramsey is a studddddddddd! And that Portis guy has just torn up the League since moving to the Redskins! I give up - I really give up! :wall: :wall: :wall:
Ok, I'll explain it one last time:

1. I think that Seattle has a better offense than Washington.

2. When researching for this poll, I came to the conclusion that Washington would garner more votes than Seattle on this message board.

3. Therefore, with only one more spot to fill, I chose to include Washington over Seattle.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along....what is so tough to understand?
Since you are the master poll maker, explain exactly the research methods that you used to reach this conclusion.
Quite simple actually...just read a lot of the posts here and came to a conclusion on how the majority of the people here felt.

 
Are you seriously implying that a bunch of people follow me around and open all of my polls with no intention of actually contributing to the conversation or voting for a deserving team but just for the sole reason of voting for the least likely option in all of my polls? I find that rather hard to believe.
How many of the Washington voters are here arguing that they are the best offense? All of the other top vote getters have their supporters backing them up, why not the Washington ones? You're the ONLY ONE supporting those votes.
How am I supporting those votes? I've said numerous times that I don't think Washington has a very good offense. The only way I've ever "defended" them in this thread is to say that I did not vote for them with an alias as someone accused me of.And as to your point about people defending their choices...I count absolutely zero posts in this thread defending the Colts, Raiders, or Chiefs! Yet you state(and I quote): " All of the other top vote getters have their supporters backing them up". Perhaps you should check your facts before posting. Icy pots!

 
Nevermind, don't even bother answering that. I really don't care to heere more about your BS reasearch.

Go find a woman and get laid pal. It will do wonders for you.

You have chosen to ignore jwvdcw. View this post · Un-ignore jwvdcw

Why I ever took you off ignore...
Are you seriously getting worked up over this? Dude, its an internet message board...who cares? Relax man...have a good Labor Day.
 
Don't underestimate the impact of Moss- There will never be 8 men in the box anymore and the running should be much easier now.
Perhaps you're the one underestimating the impact of Moss. If he doesn't get the ball 40% of the time, he'll throw a hissy fit- which means fewer rushing attempts.Look, if you took Tomlinson, Moss, Holt, Owens, and Gonzalez and put them all on the same team... ALL FIVE OF THEIR NUMBERS WOULD SUFFER. Why? Because sure star players open things up, but they ALSO TAKE THE BALL AWAY FROM THE REST OF THE GUYS.

I've already posted the rushing numbers St. Louis has put up with the best WR tandem in the entire NFL keeping people out of the box. Philly put up 1409 yards last season with Owens keeping opposing defenses from stacking the box (and 1619 the year before, without Owens keeping opposing defenses from stacking the box). And the Vikings, with Randy Moss himself keeping people from stacking the box? 1360 rushing yards last season, 1804 the season before, 1799 the season before that, 1029 the season before that.

Anyone who is using Randy Moss to justify an improvement in Oakland's running game has lost touch with reality, and is skewing all sorts of rationalizations in order to justify the scenario they most want to see come true. Rod Smith or Hines Ward, yes. Those guys will improve your running game. Why? Well, for one, they throw downfield blocks. For another, they're unselfish and won't whine if the team runs the ball more than it passes the ball. For another, they don't take plays off when the ball isn't coming their way.

It absolutely amazes me that, because of the arrival of Moss, fantasy footballers are high on EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE OFFENSE. Somehow, Moss coming to town will mean Jerry Porter gets more balls, and LaMont Jordan gets more balls, and Kerry Collins suddenly learns how to make good decisions. Talk about a departure from reality. For every gain that Jordan and Porter make because of the attention focused on Moss, they will make an equal loss because of all the balls going in Moss's direction.

 
I am a master at making polls
:lmao:
When making a poll, you don't include the choices that you think are most deserving. You include the choices that you think will garner the most votes. IMHO, Washington would get more votes than Seattle in a poll like this. Now, if we had a poll asking who had a better offense of the two, I would expect Seattle to win. However, in a poll that is only for the #1 offense, I would expect more people to vote for Washington than Seattle.
It's nice that you think and believe that, but the truth is, not many people take your polls serious and probably just vote for the worst option. If Washington was replaced with Chicago, I'd bet they would have 10 votes too.
Colts [ 80 ] [51.95%] KC [ 17 ] [11.04%]

Oakland [ 5 ] [3.25%]

St Louis [ 21 ] [13.64%]

Philly [ 6 ] [3.90%]

NE [ 5 ] [3.25%]

Detroit [ 2 ] [1.30%]

Carolina [ 4 ] [2.60%]

Denver [ 1 ] [0.65%]

NO [ 0 ] [0.00%]

TB [ 2 ] [1.30%]

GB [ 1 ] [0.65%]

Wash [ 10 ] [6.49%]

Really? So The Colts are the worst option? Or you must be talking about the 2nd leading vote getter, the Rams...are they the worst option? Or the thrid, the Chiefs?

Are you seriously implying that a bunch of people follow me around and open all of my polls with no intention of actually contributing to the conversation or voting for a deserving team but just for the sole reason of voting for the least likely option in all of my polls? I find that rather hard to believe.
I really do think you would be amazed at how many probably do, in fact, do that in some of your polls. Not saying they do, but i have a feeling that quite a few did it just to skew the poll and just to be stupid, realizing that Washington trully is not the best offense. Pure and simple, anyone who votes Washington in this poll is plain stupid, so the only way they decided to vote for them was to skew the poll or just voted them to play around or whatever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am a master at making polls
A legend in your own mind more likely :loco:
I get more poll requests just via fax in one day than you probably have ever gotten via fax, phone, email, or PM.
:lmao: :lmao: I always wondered why everyone thought jwvdcw was such a tool...now I know. So funny though...
So am I funny or am I tool?My opinion: I don't mind acting like a tool for the sake of laughs. After all, this is just an internet message board, and if I can get a few laughs in exchange for ruining my "online rep" then I'm all for it.

 
I am a master at making polls
A legend in your own mind more likely :loco:
I get more poll requests just via fax in one day than you probably have ever gotten via fax, phone, email, or PM.
Jeez you're one goofy character :crazy: But at least you're highly entertaining. Keep up the good work. :thumbup:
Thanks for the kind words. But I sense disbelief...do you not think that I get said faxes? PM me your address and I'll mail some letters and faxes that I've gotten over to you.
 
I am a master at making polls
A legend in your own mind more likely :loco:
I get more poll requests just via fax in one day than you probably have ever gotten via fax, phone, email, or PM.
Jeez you're one goofy character :crazy: But at least you're highly entertaining. Keep up the good work. :thumbup:
I think there's a misspelling there - he meant pole requests. :lmao:
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL!! LOL!!!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

ROTFLMAO!!!! LOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHHAHAHAHA!!!! :lmao:

:lmao:

 
I am a master at making polls
A legend in your own mind more likely :loco:
I get more poll requests just via fax in one day than you probably have ever gotten via fax, phone, email, or PM.
:lmao: :lmao: I always wondered why everyone thought jwvdcw was such a tool...now I know. So funny though...
So am I funny or am I tool?My opinion: I don't mind acting like a tool for the sake of laughs. After all, this is just an internet message board, and if I can get a few laughs in exchange for ruining my "online rep" then I'm all for it.
Some people are funny because they purposely act like a tool, I guess thats their "shtick." Unfortunately I wouldn't be suprised if you were completely serious when you made that post. I only wish I knew who was sending you requests to make polls. Probably the people who voted for Washington.
 
Why the flying eff would somebody bother to send an email or PM, let alone a FAX, to some schmuck requesting said schmuck to create a poll, rather than simply creating a poll themself?

 
By the way, jwvdcw, there are, in fact, quite a lot of people who will vote the most absurd option in a poll, or the "comedy option", regardless of who made the poll. I bet you if I started a poll that said "Who is the best QB that ever played the game?" and listed Elway, Montana, Unitas, Marino, and Ryan Leaf, Ryan Leaf would get a significant portion of the vote. I'd even wager he'd get more of the vote than Dan Marino.People think they're funny. That wouldn't mean I'm an "expert" at making polls.Also, the goal of a poll isn't to put in the most popular options, it's to put in the best options. Again, assuming I make a best QB ever poll, are you saying Brady deserves a place in the poll? He'd certainly be a popular option. If I made it on a Pittsburgh Steelers message board, should I put Big Ben on the poll? Of course not, such pandering would compromise the integrity of the poll. Why would I list a QB in the "best QBs ever" poll if I believed that there was no reason whatsoever that anyone could REASONABLY consider him the best ever? If I were making a poll for the last election to try to find out who people thought was most likely to be the next president, should I put "Carrot Top" as one of the choices, or "Gilligan" as one of the choices, even if I expected lots of people to jokingly select that choice?

 
Why the flying eff would somebody bother to send an email or PM, let alone a FAX, to some schmuck requesting said schmuck to create a poll, rather than simply creating a poll themself?
This question has been asked many times. I grow tired of answering it so much, but I will make an exception just for you.Some people mess up polls a lot. A clear example of a mess up here would've been to include Seattle over Washington, and as you can tell a lot of people would've made that mistake. Other common mistakes are to not utilize all of the options when more options are pertinent, to not include an other option if it would garner a lot of votes, or to mess up the wording of a poll.

Personally, I'm with you- I don't think poll-making is that hard. I think that everyone should just do their own polls. However, I continue to get requests, so I fulfill them since I'm a nice guy.

 
By the way, jwvdcw, there are, in fact, quite a lot of people who will vote the most absurd option in a poll, or the "comedy option", regardless of who made the poll. I bet you if I started a poll that said "Who is the best QB that ever played the game?" and listed Elway, Montana, Unitas, Marino, and Ryan Leaf, Ryan Leaf would get a significant portion of the vote. I'd even wager he'd get more of the vote than Dan Marino.

People think they're funny. That wouldn't mean I'm an "expert" at making polls.

Also, the goal of a poll isn't to put in the most popular options, it's to put in the best options. Again, assuming I make a best QB ever poll, are you saying Brady deserves a place in the poll? He'd certainly be a popular option. If I made it on a Pittsburgh Steelers message board, should I put Big Ben on the poll? Of course not, such pandering would compromise the integrity of the poll. Why would I list a QB in the "best QBs ever" poll if I believed that there was no reason whatsoever that anyone could REASONABLY consider him the best ever? If I were making a poll for the last election to try to find out who people thought was most likely to be the next president, should I put "Carrot Top" as one of the choices, or "Gilligan" as one of the choices, even if I expected lots of people to jokingly select that choice?
I actually think Brady is one of the best QBs of all time, but thats another discussion for another time. Yes, I believe that you should give the people the right to vote for whomever they choose. Basically, you're saying that many people are morons and vote for stupid options. Well, if the average man is a moron, then a polling of the average man will probably yield a moronic result....that doesn't change the fact that we're trying to get the concensus here, regardless of whether or not the poll-maker agrees with it.
 
By the way, jwvdcw, there are, in fact, quite a lot of people who will vote the most absurd option in a poll, or the "comedy option", regardless of who made the poll. I bet you if I started a poll that said "Who is the best QB that ever played the game?" and listed Elway, Montana, Unitas, Marino, and Ryan Leaf, Ryan Leaf would get a significant portion of the vote. I'd even wager he'd get more of the vote than Dan Marino.

People think they're funny. That wouldn't mean I'm an "expert" at making polls.

Also, the goal of a poll isn't to put in the most popular options, it's to put in the best options. Again, assuming I make a best QB ever poll, are you saying Brady deserves a place in the poll? He'd certainly be a popular option. If I made it on a Pittsburgh Steelers message board, should I put Big Ben on the poll? Of course not, such pandering would compromise the integrity of the poll. Why would I list a QB in the "best QBs ever" poll if I believed that there was no reason whatsoever that anyone could REASONABLY consider him the best ever? If I were making a poll for the last election to try to find out who people thought was most likely to be the next president, should I put "Carrot Top" as one of the choices, or "Gilligan" as one of the choices, even if I expected lots of people to jokingly select that choice?
I actually think Brady is one of the best QBs of all time, but thats another discussion for another time. Yes, I believe that you should give the people the right to vote for whomever they choose. Basically, you're saying that many people are morons and vote for stupid options. Well, if the average man is a moron, then a polling of the average man will probably yield a moronic result....that doesn't change the fact that we're trying to get the concensus here, regardless of whether or not the poll-maker agrees with it.
If you want to give people the right to vote for whomever they choose, then you would include an option that said "Other (please specify in thread)". You didn't do that. As a result, anyone who wanted to vote for whomever they chose was screwed, if whomever they chose happened to be Seattle, or another of the teams you left off the poll.Again, the fact that Ryan Leaf would get votes in a "Who was the best QB ever" poll does not justify his presence on the poll. Arguing otherwise is utterly asinine.

 
I faxed jvwdcwvdcwevdvw and asked him to create this poll just to vote for Washington.well done.

 
By the way, jwvdcw, there are, in fact, quite a lot of people who will vote the most absurd option in a poll, or the "comedy option", regardless of who made the poll. I bet you if I started a poll that said "Who is the best QB that ever played the game?" and listed Elway, Montana, Unitas, Marino, and Ryan Leaf, Ryan Leaf would get a significant portion of the vote. I'd even wager he'd get more of the vote than Dan Marino.

People think they're funny. That wouldn't mean I'm an "expert" at making polls.

Also, the goal of a poll isn't to put in the most popular options, it's to put in the best options. Again, assuming I make a best QB ever poll, are you saying Brady deserves a place in the poll? He'd certainly be a popular option. If I made it on a Pittsburgh Steelers message board, should I put Big Ben on the poll? Of course not, such pandering would compromise the integrity of the poll. Why would I list a QB in the "best QBs ever" poll if I believed that there was no reason whatsoever that anyone could REASONABLY consider him the best ever? If I were making a poll for the last election to try to find out who people thought was most likely to be the next president, should I put "Carrot Top" as one of the choices, or "Gilligan" as one of the choices, even if I expected lots of people to jokingly select that choice?
I actually think Brady is one of the best QBs of all time, but thats another discussion for another time. Yes, I believe that you should give the people the right to vote for whomever they choose. Basically, you're saying that many people are morons and vote for stupid options. Well, if the average man is a moron, then a polling of the average man will probably yield a moronic result....that doesn't change the fact that we're trying to get the concensus here, regardless of whether or not the poll-maker agrees with it.
If you want to give people the right to vote for whomever they choose, then you would include an option that said "Other (please specify in thread)". You didn't do that. As a result, anyone who wanted to vote for whomever they chose was screwed, if whomever they chose happened to be Seattle, or another of the teams you left off the poll.Again, the fact that Ryan Leaf would get votes in a "Who was the best QB ever" poll does not justify his presence on the poll. Arguing otherwise is utterly asinine.
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
 
I am a master at making polls
A legend in your own mind more likely :loco:
I get more poll requests just via fax in one day than you probably have ever gotten via fax, phone, email, or PM.
Jeez you're one goofy character :crazy: But at least you're highly entertaining. Keep up the good work. :thumbup:
Thanks for the kind words. But I sense disbelief...do you not think that I get said faxes? PM me your address and I'll mail some letters and faxes that I've gotten over to you.
LOL...Dude you don't have to prove anything to me. I could care less whether you do, or don't get faxes. I just enjoy the good chuckle I get from your polls. :yes:

 
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
Actually, YOU'VE missed the point. Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces. You have no reason to believe that they voted for Washington because it was the best offense, instead of that they voted for Washington because it was the most laughably ridiculous offense included. If you replace Washington with Chicago, I bet it would have gotten just as many votes. So what about those people who would have voted Chicago? Why didn't you give them that chance- bottom line?And if your poll is so great, how come New Orleans doesn't have a single vote? Where was your research there?

 
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
Actually, YOU'VE missed the point. Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces. You have no reason to believe that they voted for Washington because it was the best offense, instead of that they voted for Washington because it was the most laughably ridiculous offense included. If you replace Washington with Chicago, I bet it would have gotten just as many votes. So what about those people who would have voted Chicago? Why didn't you give them that chance- bottom line?And if your poll is so great, how come New Orleans doesn't have a single vote? Where was your research there?
Nobody would've voted for Chicago imho. Please show me one person who would've. As for "Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces"- havn't I already addresses that a few posts ago? None of the Colts or Chiefs voters have either....why aren't you calling those voters out?
 
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
Actually, YOU'VE missed the point. Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces. You have no reason to believe that they voted for Washington because it was the best offense, instead of that they voted for Washington because it was the most laughably ridiculous offense included. If you replace Washington with Chicago, I bet it would have gotten just as many votes. So what about those people who would have voted Chicago? Why didn't you give them that chance- bottom line?And if your poll is so great, how come New Orleans doesn't have a single vote? Where was your research there?
Nobody would've voted for Chicago imho. Please show me one person who would've. As for "Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces"- havn't I already addresses that a few posts ago? None of the Colts or Chiefs voters have either....why aren't you calling those voters out?
Because the Colts and Chiefs voters HAVE shown their faces. Maybe not in this thread, but go check out the thread about St. Louis having the deepest offense in the NFL. Filled with Colts and Chiefs guys. Heck, even Dallas guys showed up. I'd like to see one post on this entire MESSAGE BOARD that called Washington the best offense in the NFL.And like I said, people vote for the stupidest option. Right now, that stupidest option is Washington. If you replaced Washington with Chicago, Chicago would have been the stupidest option, and people would have voted for it as a comedy vote. How do I know? I was 2 seconds away from voting for Washington as a comedy vote, myself, before I decided to pick Denver in another out-of-left-field vote.

If you had put "Miami (of Ohio)" as one of the options, I would have voted for it in a heartbeat. So by not putting Miami (of Ohio), you have denied me my chance to let my opinion be heard. Nevermind the fact that Miami (of Ohio) isn't actually an NFL team. Nevermind the fact that even if they were, they'd be the worst offense in the NFL. The goal of making polls is to include options that would have gotten votes, and I guarantee you I would have voted for that option if you had included it. Which means it would have gotten at least one more vote than New Orleans. Of course, then Denver wouldn't have gotten any votes, so your poll still wouldn't have been any good.

You still haven't answered my question. If the goal of polls is to provide options that will get the most votes, then how is this poll anything but a failure? No one has voted for New Orleans yet!

 
With Favre at QB ( He has had monster seasons even after loosing key O-line guys in the past ) With depth at WR. With Bubba in camp and happy and with Green and Davenport looking quick and better in the dump-off game than last couple of years and with a defense that will demand an urgency to score I'm surprised to see the Pack getting so little love. Remember the pack lost Adam Timmerman to St. Louis, Joe Andruzzi NE, Ross Verba Cle. etc. etc. in the past and came back with strong offenses even with much weaker WR depth!

 
You're missing the point. No "other" option was needed here because I havn't seen one person that truly wanted to vote for Seattle, even though some felt they should've at least been included. However, a lot of people did want to vote for Washington. Now whether or not those people are idiots, smart voters, or guys trying to ruin a poll is anybody's guess. But I don't care about that....they wanted to vote for Washington so I gave them that chance- bottom line.
Actually, YOU'VE missed the point. Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces. You have no reason to believe that they voted for Washington because it was the best offense, instead of that they voted for Washington because it was the most laughably ridiculous offense included. If you replace Washington with Chicago, I bet it would have gotten just as many votes. So what about those people who would have voted Chicago? Why didn't you give them that chance- bottom line?And if your poll is so great, how come New Orleans doesn't have a single vote? Where was your research there?
Nobody would've voted for Chicago imho. Please show me one person who would've. As for "Not one of these Washington voters have shown their faces"- havn't I already addresses that a few posts ago? None of the Colts or Chiefs voters have either....why aren't you calling those voters out?
Because the Colts and Chiefs voters HAVE shown their faces. Maybe not in this thread, but go check out the thread about St. Louis having the deepest offense in the NFL. Filled with Colts and Chiefs guys. Heck, even Dallas guys showed up. I'd like to see one post on this entire MESSAGE BOARD that called Washington the best offense in the NFL.And like I said, people vote for the stupidest option. Right now, that stupidest option is Washington. If you replaced Washington with Chicago, Chicago would have been the stupidest option, and people would have voted for it as a comedy vote. How do I know? I was 2 seconds away from voting for Washington as a comedy vote, myself, before I decided to pick Denver in another out-of-left-field vote.

If you had put "Miami (of Ohio)" as one of the options, I would have voted for it in a heartbeat. So by not putting Miami (of Ohio), you have denied me my chance to let my opinion be heard. Nevermind the fact that Miami (of Ohio) isn't actually an NFL team. Nevermind the fact that even if they were, they'd be the worst offense in the NFL. The goal of making polls is to include options that would have gotten votes, and I guarantee you I would have voted for that option if you had included it. Which means it would have gotten at least one more vote than New Orleans. Of course, then Denver wouldn't have gotten any votes, so your poll still wouldn't have been any good.

You still haven't answered my question. If the goal of polls is to provide options that will get the most votes, then how is this poll anything but a failure? No one has voted for New Orleans yet!
You're missing my point.I DON'T CARE THE REASONING BEHIND WHY PEOPLE VOTE FOR WHO THEY DO. If you say that people only vote for Washington out of comedy, thats fine- I don't care. All I know is that Seattle would not have as many votes as Washington if they were in the poll. Therefore I didn't include them. If people want to use their vote to be comedians, then thats fine with me. I just provide choices that people like.

I may have miscalculated with N.O. or maybe the N.O. voters just havn't turned out yet or maybe there was no "correct" option to put into that slot because none of them would've gotten votes so N.O. is just as good as anyone else to be in it.

I hope I have answered all of your questions regarding poll-making. I'd be glad to answer any more you have, though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Favre at QB ( He has had monster seasons even after loosing key O-line guys in the past ) With depth at WR. With Bubba in camp and happy and with Green and Davenport looking quick and better in the dump-off game than last couple of years and with a defense that will demand an urgency to score I'm surprised to see the Pack getting so little love. Remember the pack lost Adam Timmerman to St. Louis, Joe Andruzzi NE, Ross Verba Cle. etc. etc. in the past and came back with strong offenses even with much weaker WR depth!
Your bolded comment shows you're missing the point....I'm not asking who will score the most or which offense is in the best situation to put up big points. Therefore, defense doesn't matter at all...I'm simply asking who the best is.Let me put it another way: Totally forget every team's schedule, coach, defense, special teams, home field, etc. Just focus on their offense. Now which one is the best?

 
Let me put it another way: Totally forget every team's schedule, coach, defense, special teams, home field, etc. Just focus on their offense. Now which one is the best?
Washington of course :loco:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top