renroh123's Blog

The money game of the year is upon us: Pats @ Saints

By renroh123 | View all Posts
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:22 AM   67 comments

The easiest play of the year thus far is New England over New Orleans.  If you don’t believe me, listen to the facts:

 

  • Saints are 10-0, but it is smoke and mirrors.  The combined records of the Saints victims this season is 37-64 (in other words the average team the beat this year would finish the season at 6-10)
  • The Pats are 7-3.  The combined records of the pats opponents are 46-53 (the average opponent would end the season 7-9, to 8-8)
  • Now the above is not a huge difference, though a definite argument for the pats; not a big diff until you look at what types of teams they beat, or lost to:

The Pats ave opponent was rated 19.2 on Offense, and 16.3 on Defense.  The Saints ave opponent rated 18.8 (slightly better than Pats opponents), and 18.9 on Defense (clearly inferior to Pats opponents)

* Both teams have faced 3 opponents with winning records, but Pats faced 8 teams that are 4-6 or better, while the Saints only faced 5 opponents that are 6-4 or better.

 

  • The pats have the 2nd rated Offense, and 6th rated Defense in the nfl.  The Saints have the 6th rated offense, and 15th rated defense.  The Pats are rated higher on both sides of the ball while facing clearly better opponents.
  • The Pats have the 2nd rated pass offense, while the Saints are rated 6th…. All the while the Pats faced the tougher defenses

 

 

In Short; the Pats have faced better quality opponents, while rating higher on both sides of the ball.  The Saints have the better produced running game, but that could easily be because the Pats have not found anyone lately to slow down their passing game, and did not have to run.  The pats have Brady, who has proven he can win the big games, Brees has never won the big games, a few mediocre games maybe.  The Pats have ‘cheat-a-chek’ (bill) at the helm, and he loves Monday nights, and will out smart Peyton many times over. The absolute best teams the Saints beat this season are the Giants (not too good), and Philly (who was also beaten by the raiders)…. The Pats beat Indy like red headed step children, and let them come back… The Pats are still embarrassed about that Indy game, and want to make it right in front of a national crowd.  All the pressure is on the Saints; trying to prove they can beat a real team, and trying to stay undefeated….. guys, the betting public will keep the line in favor of the Saints, and this is a money game if your bookie can let you give the saints up to 10 pts from the line: moving the line from Pats +3 to Pats -7 you might be able to get a line of +800 ($100 to win $800)

Report Abuse
 
67 comments
comment Post A Comment
renroh123 says:
11/24/09 04:01PM

Lol.... "do I not watch type?" lol.... You miss the point here... the Saint have beaten no one.  I will look forward to talking to you post game.

renroh123 says:
11/24/09 04:28PM

I don't agree there either; the pats have the 6th overall rated D in the NFL.  I see the Saints squeeking out 17, and maybe a backdoor 24 at the games end to the Pats 38.  Like I said, I hate the Pats, but ez money is ez moonnneyy.

renroh123 says:
11/24/09 04:40PM

Hey Saintsfan,

Look, I get it, and cannot blame you.  If I were a Saints fan through all those years, and suffered as you did-I would be saying what you are as well.  You finally have a team no one can laugh at, and I am honestly happy for you. 

Yes Sir, I have indeed watch Saints games, and made money betting them.  I see every game, every week-I have lived in Vegas for almost 2 years now, and the casinos have every game on.  I have made money on betting Saints this year, so I have nothing against them.  My point is simple friend, and that is the Saints have played no one, and have beaten no one.  Their crowning victories were against a Philly team that is so inconsistant that they lost to the Raiders, and the Giants (who lost to Az, Philly, and barely beat the skins).... this is the first real team the Saints came within 10 zip codes of, and it is not going to be pretty.  It sucks that you have to endure reality like this, I wish your schedule would have allowed them to coast the last half, like they did the first half.  Sorry man, just stating facts.

renroh123 says:
11/24/09 05:07PM

I hear you, and see your point made.  My point is much like your; both teams have played less than stellar (average opponents) teams.  But my point is that the Saints have played an even softer schedule, and the Pats are still rated higher on both sides of the ball... recently, the Pats are at their high point (after a dismal start), and the Saints (not counting this past week) barely beat the Rams, and here playing first halves that required them having to play incredible second halves.... I am talking money here, and the more I watch, the more I realize the only diff between the NFL and the WWF is that the public knows that the WWF results are predetermined, but in certain cases-nothing can be done to stop the inevitable.... I would play a grand giving the Saints 13.5 if I were getting +1000 odds (1,000 to win 10,000)

renroh123 says:
11/24/09 05:51PM
Now hold on there.... Minnesota has had an even easier schedule than the Saint.... thier opponents have a combined record of 28-64-4 of their wins were against teams that have 2 or less wins for the season (detroit X 2, Cleve, and St Louis), they have only played 3 games against winning opponents (are 2-1 in those games for a combined score in those games of: 85-76)... though the stellar defense would urge me to taking the vikes over the Saints if that game were to take place now...but the Vikes definitely have an easier schedule than the Saints.
renroh123 says:
11/25/09 03:24AM

lol... uhh yeah....espn.com.... did you just grab that out of mid air, or is your calculator broken? ..lol...ok... I will break it down if anyone cares

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 03:24AM

Ill shoot you a pm after the game bro

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 04:11AM

LOL.... so, it PROVES I know nothing about gambling....Sir, I live in Vegas, and wage daily...it is about the math....that you, obviously, do not understand.  In a game like this; is it probable that if these two team played 9 games (with all things the same as they are now, and before gametime...i.e. injuries, rooster, coaches, ect) would the Pats win by 13.5 pts one time out of 10? Absolutely! and if that is the case, that bet is a good bet... let me paint it out for you, as you obviously don't understand a true cappers mathematical logic... if I made that bet 10 times, lost 9, I would lose 900....it hits 1 time, and the odds being +1000 I win 1000... a net profit of +$100... I know there are some pro cappers on here that are nodding their heads as they read this, and the only ones that would contest it, such as yourself; who looks at each bets odds as just the extra you make for any bet won.... the point is... if you look at the yankees playing the Tigers in NY with sabathia pitching and you are getting +400, but are sure that the tigers would win 1 out of 3 times.... you bet it, and you will lose it 2 out of 3 times, but if all your bets are made with that logic, you will win like games 1 of 3 times, and profit on those bets +$100..... My friend, it is you who know little, shown that you know little, and are still, after reading this, too ignorant in what we are talking about to know that you just exposed this.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 05:10AM

First off... admittedly, I did reply to the Saintsfan's comment about Vikes/Saints schedule toughness off the cuff..... no doubt...this is a Saints/Pats post afterall....secondly, I will not retract my statement, but will say that the Saints did not play a tougher schedule....they played about the same schedule....An easy one...you talk about playing the steelers, but you lost (vikes).. the only team either one of you played that rates in the top ten in offense, and defense is you (vikes); you played the steelers, which brought up your average (below), but you lost once again.... and even with the steelers in your played history...you both played just about identically rated defenses, and you (vikes) played  SLIGHTLY better offenses....BUT... their (saints) opponents won 1 more game than yours, and thier opponent lost 2 less games....... I would be hard pressed to find an experienced, non biased oppinion that would contest the fact that 1) you both had nearly the same rated schedule and 2) neither one of you played and beat anyone worth mentioning as high quality

the next post contains the supporting info

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 05:18AM

it will not let me post the whole thing...somehow I am over max characters.. I can email it to whoever wants the doc...

totals are

Saints

Totals   37                    63                    18.5 average    19.4 average

Saints

Totals                                 36                    65                    18.1 ave          18.6 ave

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:09AM

Obviously a Saints fan that lacks mathematical skills, or just has not clue how to calculate averages.... I will paint it out, and provide a link to espn for anyone wanting to validate:

the opponent is listed followed by the overall D rating/O rating (team d rating/o rating),

Saints played: Detroit 31/24, eagles 8/11, bills 25/28, jets 5/20, Giants 2/4, miami 19/23, falcons 28/14, panthers 11/15, rams 29/26, bucs 27/29........ that equals 185 divided by 10 games = 18.5. defense....194 divided by 10 games = 19.4.... you had 24.3 and 20.5???

NE played: Bills 25/28, Jets 5/20, falcons 28/14, Ravens 9/13, Broncos 7/22, Titans 26/18, Bucs 27/29, Dolphins 19/23, , Colts 15/3, Jets 5/14....... that equals   166 defense divided by 10= 16.6, and 184 on offense divided by 10 = 18.4...... you got 21.5 and 21.2....... I am hoping many see this and realize you are one of the idiots who post bogus info b/c you either dont know how to get the real deal, or you would rather just wing it..... You should not be paid any attention to on here.... many of us are here to make money bro

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:14AM

 

I stand behind my figures, though you sit back and comment that they are incorrect.  Tell me what is incorrect, I will prove it, and provide links to support them.... just to expose you as a voice that should not be given credibility.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:16AM

and when the game is finished, I will ridicule you on your every post I come across..lol

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:17AM

 

Ill go easy on you b/c you are a fellow Steeler Nation member... but I will send you a PM after the game to state "I told you so" later.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:22AM

question...why would anyone on here give you a bit of credibility...you play and list your MLB history of picks, and not one nfl pick...how do we know you even follow football? lol.... granted, I only have 17 games played as I forget to pick them here, but I show them, and am over 50%........ go away idiot

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:24AM

and the guy who posted the above has his pick history hidden for some reason....wonder why?? hmmm lol....what an idiot

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:30AM

New standard reply to those who pick the NFL below 50%, or worse...hide their picks...make no mistake, the loudest people in these threads are the worst gamblers.  They cannot pick a winner to save their lives, and will never bring their average above 50% so they hide their plays, and run their mouths.  You don't rate a reply.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:32AM

if you can't see the opportunity in this game; stop wagering now, and stick your money under your pillow

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:33AM

New standard reply to those who pick the NFL below 50%, or worse...hide their picks...make no mistake, the loudest people in these threads are the worst gamblers.  They cannot pick a winner to save their lives, and will never bring their average above 50% so they hide their plays, and run their mouths.  You don't rate a reply

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:34AM

New standard reply to those who pick the NFL below 50%, or worse...hide their picks...make no mistake, the loudest people in these threads are the worst gamblers.  They cannot pick a winner to save their lives, and will never bring their average above 50% so they hide their plays, and run their mouths.  You don't rate a reply

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:37AM

actually the Pats O is substantially better if you look at it.... 1) they are rated higher in offense 2) they are rated higher while going against better defenses

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:41AM

what side of my ass I am talking out of? lol... I only post facts... supported here...

Saints played: Detroit 31/24, eagles 8/11, bills 25/28, jets 5/20, Giants 2/4, miami 19/23, falcons 28/14, panthers 11/15, rams 29/26, bucs 27/29........ that equals 185 divided by 10 games = 18.5. defense....194 divided by 10 games = 19.4.... you had 24.3 and 20.5???

NE played: Bills 25/28, Jets 5/20, falcons 28/14, Ravens 9/13, Broncos 7/22, Titans 26/18, Bucs 27/29, Dolphins 19/23, , Colts 15/3, Jets 5/14....... that equals   166 defense divided by 10= 16.6, and 184 on offense divided by 10 = 18.4......

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:47AM

New disclaimer:

If you don’t have viewable pick history in the NFL of 50% or higher, then I, or anyone for that matter, have/has no reason to believe you have a clue what you are talking about.  If you have your pick history hidden, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a losing player.  The only type of person who would hide their winning pick history; that person would not be inclined to engage in a debate on these threads.  Knowing this, I don’t have time to educate the ignorant, nor debate a topic with someone who is attracted to losing picks.

 

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 06:53AM

Sorry bro, I go to the tried and true quality source...espn...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total

there are alot of obscure sites, that provide inferior info... that might explain why you hide your pick history.... whose site is that, your cousin Jethro's?

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:20AM

Saints played: Detroit 31/24, eagles 8/11, bills 25/28, jets 5/20, Giants 2/4, miami 19/23, falcons 28/14, panthers 11/15, rams 29/26, bucs 27/29........ that equals 185 divided by 10 games = 18.5. defense....194 divided by 10 games = 19.4.... you had 24.3 and 20.5???

NE played: Bills 25/28, Jets 5/20, falcons 28/14, Ravens 9/13, Broncos 7/22, Titans 26/18, Bucs 27/29, Dolphins 19/23, , Colts 15/3, Jets 5/14....... that equals   166 defense divided by 10= 16.6, and 184 on offense divided by 10 = 18.4......

verifiable on espn.com... no, not your obscure site.... the link is http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total

The numbers are absolutely correct... I am done with you...

New disclaimer:

If you don’t have viewable pick history in the NFL of 50% or higher, then I, or anyone for that matter, have/has no reason to believe you have a clue what you are talking about.  If you have your pick history hidden, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a losing player.  The only type of person who would hide their winning pick history; that person would not be inclined to engage in a debate on these threads.  Knowing this, I don’t have time to educate the ignorant, nor debate a topic with someone who is attracted to losing picks.

 

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:33AM

Speaking of Passing O of course, as that is what is pertinent in this game.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:33PM

to those whom can show they know what they are talking about; the stats, and source is listed in previous replies.  To Vegasmaxx:

New disclaimer:

If you don’t have viewable pick history in the NFL of 50% or higher, then I, or anyone for that matter, have/has no reason to believe you have a clue what you are talking about.  If you have your pick history hidden, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a losing player.  The only type of person who would hide their winning pick history; that person would not be inclined to engage in a debate on these threads.  Knowing this, I don’t have time to educate the ignorant, nor debate a topic with someone who is attracted to losing picks.

 

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:38PM

if 'talking out of my ass' is replying about the vikings-saints comparable past schedule without verifying my reply; then I guess I did.  My defense is that this is a saint-pats schedule comparison.  But I pride myself on admitting when I am wrong.  There is a total moron replying on this thread who can not show he has a clue what he is talking about...VegasMaxxx...who I hope does not live in Vegas (though that would explain his nasty disposition; losing all his money I am sure)... my figures are validated on http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:38PM

New disclaimer:

If you don’t have viewable pick history in the NFL of 50% or higher, then I, or anyone for that matter, have/has no reason to believe you have a clue what you are talking about.  If you have your pick history hidden, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a losing player.  The only type of person who would hide their winning pick history; that person would not be inclined to engage in a debate on these threads.  Knowing this, I don’t have time to educate the ignorant, nor debate a topic with someone who is attracted to losing picks.

 

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:40PM

atleast you have the ballz to show your pick history....gl

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:40PM

 

BOL 2 u both

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:45PM

I know you are going heavy on Pitt vs the Crows this weekend.... Pitt shines on the National stage, and they are one of the highest overall rated teams (offense/defense combined)... should be a cake walk as the betting public will bring the line down due to the KC mishap...

explaination: for those of you who sit in wait to tear apart statements.... look at where the overall Steeler D and O are rated, add them togather, and divide by 2.... I would GUESS that they one of the highest, if not the highest rated teams...

 

BOL

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:46PM

Nice stats (pick history)... I have to disagree if you are saying the Saints will win it; but I respect your opinion...very nice

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 07:50PM

I respect you for posting your picks, but they are not indicative of someone who profits from wagering the NFL.  Sorry, but those stats will lose you a lot more money than they win you.  I do respect the fact that you show them.  It is the 'pee-ons' that talk smack, and cannot, and will not, show their results...like the everlasting moron vegasmaxx...actually, he does not rate to be mentioned...bol

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 09:22PM

lol... you are just too transparent; I go to the sportbooks out here (vegas) quite often.  It is so easy to spot the gamblers that lose the most, as they are the ones with the nastiest disposition... lmao

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 09:27PM

lol.. I rest my case... as far as the "shot in the face"...  what can I say? you are just too transparent, and I feel sorry for you.... once again...as far as my posted stats on this topic I A) listedc the espn link to which these stats can be validated B) I litterally showed the breakdown in getting to the conclusion.  All this, and you still don't get it.  I believe you are from Vegas, b/c I seen more white trash high school drop outs out here, and you seem like you would fit right in.

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 09:28PM

HUH? dude that is just plain incoherent

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 09:32PM

 

wow...someone with a brain on this thread...cool.... Pats win by double digits...I hate the Pats, but money is money...bol

renroh123 says:
11/25/09 09:40PM

Your ignorance is beyond belief dumbass... "write down pts for and pts against"?  Ok, my point is that the Saints played an easier schedule...so if one team played the easiest schedule feasible, and one team played the roughest feasible....what the fuck would the pts for/against tell us???  NOTHING.... what I did was take the opponents of both teams rated by their O and D rating to simulate the quality...if a team played Detroit every week for 10 weeks they would have a gazillion pts for, few against...but if you rated the opponents (lions) D and O rating it would tell the story...you are just plain stupid, so stupid that I am glad we don't know each other..as I assume you live out here (vegas) and I would just have to smack the stupid out of you as an act of mercy....go away moron...

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 12:28AM

lol.... you only look at what you want to see don't you? lol.... we are talking nfl, my stats in nfl are well over 50%, and if I remembered to post them every Sunday/Monday I would crack 60% (In Nfl as well as NHL).. You played and list over 500 games...all MLB...my MLB is horseshit..as baseball is a "any given day" sport...but I never posted an opinion on MLB, because I would never put my money on it..... NFL/and NHL, I know my shit..just like in this game in question, I will be correct, and you will be wrong...go play baseball you seem like you know what you are talking about there

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 12:39AM

Ill make it easy for you dumbfuck...your ignorance is as annoying as it is obvious:

the defensive number following each team is the overall rating in the NFL according to yards allowed, the second number is the offensive rating according to yards gained (the rating is listed as 1 is best 2nd is next best..am I going too fast for you?), I took all the opponents of the Pats, and the Saints (remember lil idiot, each team played) listed thier O, and D rating in the NFL year to date, added them togather (that is the '+' sign on the c a c u l a t o r...ok so far??) and divided it by games played, which is the number 10...still with me?   this way if 2 teams play each other, adn one team played 4 weeks, and played the steelers, the Patriots, the colts, and the giants... compared to the other team playing the browns, lions, chiefs, and rams....you would see what their points scored/scored against meant...but you want to just know the points scored, and scored against, which will tell you little if the teams played a varied strength schedule.... dude you are just too stupid for me to talk to....I know your level of intellect is not your fault, but I just dont have any more time to waste on explaining trivial math to you..

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 12:42AM

NFL dumb shit..lol...what is my record there? hmmm, what is yours?  your numbers are 100% from baseball...you obviously are not confident in picking and posting NFL....we are talking NFL....NFL and NHL are my games....what are my records there? 

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 03:12AM

I am officially done on this one, but I will commit to posting a thread with those of you too blinded to see this game clearly.  I will post a 'bullet point thread' ... copy/pasting the ridiculus statements you made.. final score as I see it:

Pats 34 - Saints 24.... and yes, I would wager $100 with +1000 line with pats -13.5.. as I think there is an outside chance the Pats will break 40

enough said.

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:00AM

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:01AM

I am not a Pats fan, far from it.  But when this one is over, the 'new kid' you speak of will have a black eye, and a broken nose....

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:03AM

Lol... you are only about 20+ pts off...and I will be sure to rub it in when this one is in the books

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:04AM

LOL...I can't say I blame the Saints fans, as the team was really bad for a long time, and now they are respectable (and they deserve that compliment), but they are not a contender, but that reality will set in quickly on Monday night

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:06AM

Ravens fan... you are going to have a tough money week... you already committed to playing the Saints, and if my guess is correct, you will be playing the Ravens over steelers this Sunday... do yourself a favor and put aside the rent and grocery money before you book your plays

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 10:08AM

That is not good news at all......... get your NE plays in quick boyz.....cha ching

renroh123 says:
11/26/09 12:23PM

I agree on all points...hate em, but the saints have played no one worth mentioning, and had a rough time on questionable teams...... NE will beat the hell out of em...

renroh123 says:
11/30/09 11:13PM

I started writing this during the end of the 3rd quarter, and posted it with left in the 4th quarter.  The Saints have literally taken the Pats will to fight. I am the first to stand behind what I say, and admit when I am wrong.  The Saints are for real, and I could not have been more wrong.  Truth be told, this is as big of a capping embarrassment as I ever have incurred. The score does not do justice to the ass kicking that Brees and company dished out.  With that said; I fully anticipate those that I had ‘argued’ with on this topic to have your well deserved shots-as I would have done if the result were reversed.  Congrats, and know I will be hesitant to underestimate the New Orleans Saints in the future. Parting thoughts:

*Damn! The Saints looked good!!  I don’t think the Vikings would have a shot if the game is played in New Orleans.

* If they were to play this game again tomorrow; the line would be Saints -14.5

* Lastly, I wonder what percentage of Charger fans are wishing they traded Phillip Rivers instead? Lol….

Have at it boyz, I deserve it, and you do as well…and I won’t hide; I will reply to posts, just as I have up until now.

renroh123 says:
11/30/09 11:38PM

I have no defense to offer, and I will say that you are gracious in victory, and pure class.  Good game, good cap, and I was wrong.

renroh123 says:
11/30/09 11:39PM

one thing I can guarantee one thing if that is the case; I will not go against the Saints.

renroh123 says:
11/30/09 11:57PM

Yep, you are right, but they have nothing to do with my embarrassing mishap.  I was as wrong as I could be, and discredited myself... just here to respond (like a little bitch, lol) to those who deserve their shots at me.  BOL

renroh123 says:
11/30/09 11:58PM

You are absolutely correct.  I discredited myself.  I was totally wrong, stubbornly so, and you were dead on correct.  Good job.

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:02AM

Yep, you are correct.  I will say that I don't regret my method, it paid me many times over, but it did me no good on this one b/c I was too stuborn to believe the Saints might actually be for real... they absolutely are.  I learn, lick my wounds, man up, and be done with it.  It is not over until I reply to all the well deserved jabs I have coming.  I have no plans on changing my capping techiques, but I will be more willing to believe, and not be quite so stubborn.

Good job.

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:05AM

I thank you Sir.  You are exibiting more class than I would have, ... kudos to you.. I appreciate the mercy.  This is not over until I reply to the posts by those who I opposed on this topic (I have to reply like a little bitch of course).. thanks again....BOL

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:27AM

NFC may be a bunch of jokers, but the best team in the NFL at this point and time is the New Orleans Saints.  God knows I was biased towards the Pats, but a man has to admit when he is wrong, I was, and you are.... admit it, the Saints are the real deal.

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:33AM

You did tell me, I was wrong, you were correct... I can offer no defense at all.... And the Saints are absolutely the team to beat if you are going to think superbowl... good job.  BOL

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:35AM

lol... if I did, I would have been fired tonight...thanks, and BOL

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 12:37AM

thanks bro... asshole or not, he deserves his shot.. if it were reversed, would he offer the same humility? probably not, but how he lives and acts has no bearing on how I do.... BOL my brutha

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 03:45AM

I assume you did not have the time to read the recent replies in concerning 'what I have to say now'; I concede that I was totally wrong, and withdrew my statements as badly made.  I was wrong.  Nice play, good post, and BOL 2 U

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 03:48AM

lmao, I do very much appreciate you words, and honesty.  As far as 'talking the big talk', uhhh, let's cross that bridge when we get to it... take good care, and BOL 2 U bro.

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 09:16AM

You completely lost me on this one...

renroh123 says:
12/01/09 09:20AM

ahhh, I get it...lzzy, I believe VegasMaxx thinks you and I are the same, lol.  Not the brightest bulb on the tree I fear... later

renroh123 says:
12/02/09 12:37AM

You ARE right, and I WAS wrong... no arguing that point.  BOL 2 U

renroh123 says:
12/02/09 12:46AM

Ok, this is my final post on this thread; I feel I was overly aggressive on a losing side, I admitted it, I stood by it, I was as wrong as I could be, and many of you were dead on correct.  I learned a new lesson from this experience, and made a few decent, and valuable friends from this thread, so I can't say I totally regret it, but not all to happy about it either.  I appreciate the mercy shown, but not deserved by a few real class acts, and take the shots by those who deserved to take them.  One thought for VegasMaxx: If I was wrong, did not hide from it, came back and faced the music; would it make any sense that I would 'hide' behind alias's? lol... not a very well thought out accusation VegasMaxx... I know I showed myself to be wrong here, but you showed yourself to be...well, what I am sure everyone in your world knows you to be...

The very BOL to all of you....I will see you around here, but keep in mind I am right sometimes too....sometimes...wink

Add your response:
Please note that the blogger has the option of reviewing all comments before they are displayed to the public. Your comment may not be published immediately.
 

Profile

User: renroh123
Joined: December 2008
Location: Nevada
Team: Pittsburgh Steelers
Occupation: Other

Recent Posts

Archive

open2010
open2009

Categories

Advertisement