ronmexico Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 As a Yankees fan, I would feel a lot better knowing that it was a conspiracy rather than the fact that they choked. Can we also blame Luis Gonzalez' bottom of the ninth, winning RBI in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series on a conspiracy too? Perhaps Bud Selig was afraid that if the Yankees won four straight World Series, it would drive away fans and reduce league revenue the following year, so he had the umpire give Mariano Rivera a doctored ball.... Oh well, I can always dream, can't I? LOL, and also, how do you rig where a person hits the ball when the difference between a hit down the leftfield line and a hit down the rightfield line is one hundredth of a second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 If anything in the NFL is fixed, it's the fact that the Texans took Mario Williams instead of Reggie Bush. The "theory" is that Charlie Casserly was forced to take Mario Williams so that Reggie Bush could play for New Orleans. Although this is dumb and 100% false, it's an interesting thing to ponder. I mean, why take Mario Williams instead of Bush, Young, or Ferguson and NOT trade down? Let's hope that it was a conspiracy, just because of how bad of a move it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcrunner4623 Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 The title of the thread doesn't say "Why is the MLB fixed"...I don't see anything nearly as bad in there compared with the NFL. You guys can try to make fun with the baseball things, but I was focused on the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcrunner4623 Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 If anything in the NFL is fixed, it's the fact that the Texans took Mario Williams instead of Reggie Bush. The "theory" is that Charlie Casserly was forced to take Mario Williams so that Reggie Bush could play for New Orleans. Although this is dumb and 100% false, it's an interesting thing to ponder. I mean, why take Mario Williams instead of Bush, Young, or Ferguson and NOT trade down? Let's hope that it was a conspiracy, just because of how bad of a move it was. The Texans needed a defensive player and they got a good one in Mario Williams. I don't see a huge problem with that pick. They need so much help they gotta start somewhere. The Saints took Reggie cause they were unsure about Duece as well as he was a logical choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Well, I'm personally thankful of this thread, since we finally have something as wholly inane as the "Abreu is more consistent than Pujols" thread. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're sticking to your guns. Good for you. And welcome to my personal Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronmexico Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Well, I'm personally thankful of this thread, since we finally have something as wholly inane as the "Abreu is more consistent than Pujols" thread. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're sticking to your guns. Good for you. And welcome to my personal Hall of Fame. If I had a hall of fame, I'd vote you in on the first ballot, way before Barry Bonds. (Not you Sean O) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVPOAKAS Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I for one picked New Orleans to win the Super Bowl since their first home game against Atlanta based on the "fixed" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbeep97 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 the problem w/ the texans pick was that they might have been able to trade down for a defensive player and mario williams... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbeep97 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I for one picked New Orleans to win the Super Bowl since their first home game against Atlanta based on the "fixed" theory. HAHA!!! that's awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcrunner4623 Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 I am being agreed with, so it's not actually shot down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 This is insanity. Now I guess I can try to find a reason why Bubba Crosby sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timp Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I think the NFL is popular enough that it doesn't need to fix games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_jefe061 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 The Texans needed a defensive player and they got a good one in Mario Williams. I don't see a huge problem with that pick. They need so much help they gotta start somewhere. The Saints took Reggie cause they were unsure about Duece as well as he was a logical choice. Yeah, Mario Williams is good, but it was pointless taking him #1. They could've traded down to take Mario Williams, he wasn't even considered in the Top 5 before the Texans started looking at him. Now he has colossal expectations on him because he was the guy "picked instead of Reggie Bush". If I were Mario Williams, I'd buy Vince Young and Reggie Bush voodoo dolls and break out the lighter and safety pins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 The Texans may already have a running back before this draft, but when someone like Bush comes along, you might as well trade the guy away and keep Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcrunner4623 Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 Interesting read http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6369214 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleMo Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I was thinking about this too since I heard others talking about it on the radio. Why didn't the Texans take Bush? I thought they needed someone to run the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav3rek Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Domanick Davis (now Williams) is a good back when he's healthy 2003 -- (his rookie year) -- in 14 games he had 1,031 yrds and 8 TD's averaging 4.3 yrds per carry 2004 -- he had 1188 yrds and 13 TD's and averaged 3.9 yrds per carry 2005 -- he was hurt and only played in 11 games but had 976 yrds and averaged 4.2 per carry. we all know that the Texans offensive line isn't exactly the greatest in the world, and this guy was able to rush for over 1000 yards his first 2 seasons, and would have had a lot more if not being hurt in '05 Davis is a young guy who's shown he has skill, why would they need to take another running back, when they have sooooo many other needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.