Nall Ball

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • the REAL Rudeman
    Registered User
    • Jul 2002
    • 828

    Nall Ball

    Nall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall BallNall

    That is all.
    I solve problems with violence.

  • ICE74129
    Legendary Zoner
    • Feb 2005
    • 10796

    #2
    Re: Nall Ball

    So you want to start a guy that can't beat out **?

    Comment

    • OpIv37
      Acid Douching Asswipe
      • Sep 2002
      • 101230

      #3
      Re: Nall Ball

      nall sucks balls.


      That's why he's 3rd string behind Losnam and Holcomb. If Losnam sucks as bad as you say he does, why hasn't Nall been able to prove to the coaching staff that he's any better? He's been healthy for 3 months now.
      MiKiDo Facebook
      MiKiDo Website

      Comment

      • patmoran2006
        Ole' Ralphie SCROOGE
        • Dec 2005
        • 19840

        #4
        Re: Nall Ball

        If ****** plays like **** vs Houston Nall Ball is coming the following week at home..

        watch.


        Join the BSD FB page by CLICKING HERE

        Follow us on twitter by CLICKING HERE

        Comment

        • the REAL Rudeman
          Registered User
          • Jul 2002
          • 828

          #5
          Re: Nall Ball

          he didn't get a fair shake. like when AVP was lightyears better than RJ. Everybody knew it but management.
          I solve problems with violence.

          Comment

          • ICE74129
            Legendary Zoner
            • Feb 2005
            • 10796

            #6
            Re: Nall Ball

            Originally posted by the REAL Rudeman
            he didn't get a fair shake. like when AVP was lightyears better than RJ. Everybody knew it but management.
            Nall licker.

            Comment

            • the REAL Rudeman
              Registered User
              • Jul 2002
              • 828

              #7
              Re: Nall Ball

              dooshbag
              I solve problems with violence.

              Comment

              • Patrick76777
                Registered User
                • Jul 2002
                • 17297

                #8
                Re: Nall Ball

                Originally posted by OpIv37
                nall sucks balls.


                That's why he's 3rd string behind Losnam and Holcomb. If Losnam sucks as bad as you say he does, why hasn't Nall been able to prove to the coaching staff that he's any better? He's been healthy for 3 months now.

                Honestly! Because just about everyone was demanding that ** get 16 games for some crazy reason.

                I wounldn't be shocked if they're riding him all 16 so they can say, "Hey, we gave the guy a shot and it's obvious he doesn't have it."

                Just so that can get a free pass at the end of the year.

                But now a few of the ** guys are demanding another season. That blows me away.
                Resign our own guys!

                Comment

                • Patrick76777
                  Registered User
                  • Jul 2002
                  • 17297

                  #9
                  Re: Nall Ball

                  Originally posted by the REAL Rudeman
                  he didn't get a fair shake. like when AVP was lightyears better than RJ. Everybody knew it but management.

                  He was injured for most of TC.


                  Who knows what would have happened.
                  Resign our own guys!

                  Comment

                  • OpIv37
                    Acid Douching Asswipe
                    • Sep 2002
                    • 101230

                    #10
                    Re: Nall Ball

                    Originally posted by Patrick76777
                    Honestly! Because just about everyone was demanding that ** get 16 games for some crazy reason.

                    I wounldn't be shocked if they're riding him all 16 so they can say, "Hey, we gave the guy a shot and it's obvious he doesn't have it."

                    Just so that can get a free pass at the end of the year.

                    But now a few of the ** guys are demanding another season. That blows me away.
                    I said ** should get the whole season and I stand by that.

                    But so far he doesn't look any better. If he still looks this bad at the end of week 17, cut his ass or at least relegate him to back-up and find a new starter.

                    If we're not gonna make the playoffs (and we're not), just let him play out the season and get this thing resolved once and for all. I don't want the hardcore ** supporters to be able to say "he only got 11 games in the new system! he hasn't really had a chance yet!"

                    We've tried plugging in other teams' backups as starters in other positions and it's been a complete disaster.
                    MiKiDo Facebook
                    MiKiDo Website

                    Comment

                    • Patrick76777
                      Registered User
                      • Jul 2002
                      • 17297

                      #11
                      Re: Nall Ball

                      Originally posted by OpIv37
                      I said ** should get the whole season and I stand by that.

                      But so far he doesn't look any better. If he still looks this bad at the end of week 17, cut his ass or at least relegate him to back-up and find a new starter.

                      If we're not gonna make the playoffs (and we're not), just let him play out the season and get this thing resolved once and for all. I don't want the hardcore ** supporters to be able to say "he only got 11 games in the new system! he hasn't really had a chance yet!"

                      We've tried plugging in other teams' backups as starters in other positions and it's been a complete disaster.

                      Part of me totally understands and agrees with that. The other part of me thinks that we know KH stinks but we have no idea if Nall can play. So part of me would like to give him a few games. I don't know which way to go.
                      Resign our own guys!

                      Comment

                      • Romes
                        Registered User
                        • Jul 2002
                        • 5764

                        #12
                        Re: Nall Ball

                        All the discusion about Nall reminds me of when people would say the same things about Travis Brown.
                        Originally posted by paladin warrior
                        RALPH is drove me nut.

                        Comment

                        • Patrick76777
                          Registered User
                          • Jul 2002
                          • 17297

                          #13
                          Re: Nall Ball

                          Originally posted by Romes
                          All the discusion about Nall reminds me of when people would say the same things about Travis Brown.

                          Not even close! T. Brown was an also ran. Nall was given a large deal to come here.
                          Resign our own guys!

                          Comment

                          • Kerr
                            Hall of Fame Zoner
                            • Feb 2005
                            • 6656

                            #14
                            Re: Nall Ball

                            avp sucks.

                            Comment

                            • Romes
                              Registered User
                              • Jul 2002
                              • 5764

                              #15
                              Re: Nall Ball

                              Originally posted by Patrick76777
                              Not even close! T. Brown was an also ran. Nall was given a large deal to come here.
                              Ok, their contracts were different but its not like Nall's was that big. Both locked up the 3rd QB spot, without much competition behind them.
                              Originally posted by paladin warrior
                              RALPH is drove me nut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X