Question (regarding Bush)

spkb25 · 12-01-2009, 04:01 PM

I don't think so, and truthfully there was a game recently where neither Bell or PT were rolling, and Bush came in and had I think 75 yards on 5 or 6 carries. He had his problems earlier this year, but I think he was beginning to run better the two games before the injury

CantonLegend · 12-01-2009, 04:05 PM

just like the giants were better without shockey

we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him

that doesnt mean we are better without him

we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too

does that mean we are better without them?

no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets

reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total

skymike · 12-01-2009, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

just like the giants were better without shockey

we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him

that doesnt mean we are better without him

we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too

does that mean we are better without them?

no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets

reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total

I think that's a good answer.

PAUL, I just got the "like other facets in life" joke--lol.... I dont know, man, I'm from the 80s, so this totally barren look is weird to me--- I need just a little at least-- so I feel at home.

SaintPauly · 12-01-2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by skymike

I think that's a good answer.

PAUL, I just got the "like other facets in life" joke--lol.... I dont know, man, I'm from the 80s, so this totally barren look is weird to me--- I need just a little at least-- so I feel at home.

What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful".

CantonLegend · 12-01-2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful".

***COUGH****

wow it took me awhile but not everyone can be as bright as skymike

now i get the original joke too lol

skymike · 12-01-2009, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful".

uh uh... just too weird. bear in mind, the first "educational film" I ever saw was made in the early 70s, if that tells you anything.

You know, in a few more years, this joke wont even make sense, as no one will call it that anymore. It's like "rolling up" your window, "dialing" your phone, or "cranking" something up.

BOOGER ON REVENGE OF THE NERDS: "We have Bush."
PERSON IN THE YEAR 2012: "What do plants have to do with a party?"

SaintPauly · 12-01-2009, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by CantonLegend

just like the giants were better without shockey

we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him

that doesnt mean we are better without him

we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too

does that mean we are better without them?

no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets

reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total

But..... didn't the Giants win the Superbowl without Shockey playing? I'm just saying.....

CantonLegend · 12-01-2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by saintpaul25

But..... didn't the Giants win the Superbowl without Shockey playing? I'm just saying.....

yep.....they won that super bowl because of kevin boss

SaintPauly · 12-01-2009, 04:15 PM

I just want to say, that I'm NOT trying to start anything with this question, it's just a question. Maybe, just maybe, the Pats spent all week preparing for Bush in the game, only to find out he wasn't going to play, which could have gotten in their heads a little bit. Maybe...

exile · 12-01-2009, 04:23 PM

The Saints are even better with Bush is the correct answer. And that should scare the Redskins.

12-01-2009, 04:01 PM	#1
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,145	Re: Better without Bush??? I don't think so, and truthfully there was a game recently where neither Bell or PT were rolling, and Bush came in and had I think 75 yards on 5 or 6 carries. He had his problems earlier this year, but I think he was beginning to run better the two games before the injury

12-01-2009, 04:05 PM	#2
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Better without Bush??? just like the giants were better without shockey we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him that doesnt mean we are better without him we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too does that mean we are better without them? no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total

12-01-2009, 04:13 PM	#3
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by CantonLegend just like the giants were better without shockey we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him that doesnt mean we are better without him we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too does that mean we are better without them? no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total I think that's a good answer. PAUL, I just got the "like other facets in life" joke--lol.... I dont know, man, I'm from the 80s, so this totally barren look is weird to me--- I need just a little at least-- so I feel at home.

12-01-2009, 04:25 PM	#4
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by skymike I think that's a good answer. PAUL, I just got the "like other facets in life" joke--lol.... I dont know, man, I'm from the 80s, so this totally barren look is weird to me--- I need just a little at least-- so I feel at home. What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful".

12-01-2009, 04:29 PM	#5
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by saintpaul25 What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful". *COUGH** wow it took me awhile but not everyone can be as bright as skymike now i get the original joke too lol

12-01-2009, 05:04 PM	#6
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by saintpaul25 What can I say? I'm a firm believer that "bald is beautiful". uh uh... just too weird. bear in mind, the first "educational film" I ever saw was made in the early 70s, if that tells you anything. You know, in a few more years, this joke wont even make sense, as no one will call it that anymore. It's like "rolling up" your window, "dialing" your phone, or "cranking" something up. BOOGER ON REVENGE OF THE NERDS: "We have Bush." PERSON IN THE YEAR 2012: "What do plants have to do with a party?"

12-01-2009, 08:43 PM	#7
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by CantonLegend just like the giants were better without shockey we were 9-0 this year with reggie......we are 2-0 without him that doesnt mean we are better without him we are 11-0 without lance moore and jammal brown too does that mean we are better without them? no.....it means we played lights out and dominated a team that deserves almost all the credit it ever gets reggie would've scored against the pats and we would've had another passing TD to add to brees' total But..... didn't the Giants win the Superbowl without Shockey playing? I'm just saying.....

12-01-2009, 10:37 PM	#8
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Better without Bush??? Originally Posted by saintpaul25 But..... didn't the Giants win the Superbowl without Shockey playing? I'm just saying..... yep.....they won that super bowl because of kevin boss

12-01-2009, 04:15 PM	#9
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Better without Bush??? I just want to say, that I'm NOT trying to start anything with this question, it's just a question. Maybe, just maybe, the Pats spent all week preparing for Bush in the game, only to find out he wasn't going to play, which could have gotten in their heads a little bit. Maybe...

12-01-2009, 04:23 PM	#10
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: Better without Bush??? The Saints are even better with Bush is the correct answer. And that should scare the Redskins.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode