From: Bob Braun on 27 Sep 2009 01:57
They may be the best team on paper, but they *are* the Cubs!
From: RJA on 27 Sep 2009 14:46
On Sep 27, 1:57 am, "Bob Braun" <oxin...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> They may be the best team on paper, but they *are* the Cubs!
And the Browns are the Cubs of the NFL.
From: tom dunne on 28 Sep 2009 22:47
On Sep 28, 5:15 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote:
> We all know the moves the Cardinals made around the break enabled them
> to win this division. But how far will they go with a very mediocre
> pitching staff?
The Cards' pitching isn't mediocre. They have the second best ERA in
the league, and their rotation includes two of the league's best
pitchers in Carpenter and Wainwright. Add in Pineiro, Smoltz and a
very good bullpen, and they're definitely strong enough to win a World
From: John Kasupski on 28 Sep 2009 23:42
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:15 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>If not the Browns, who would the Cubs of the NFL be?
Maybe the Detroit Lions? They actually won a game last Sunday...for the first
time since December 2007.
From: Bob Braun on 29 Sep 2009 00:11
"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:15 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com>
>>If not the Browns, who would the Cubs of the NFL be?
> Maybe the Detroit Lions? They actually won a game last Sunday...for the
> time since December 2007.
How many NFL teams have gone multiple generations without a title
appearance. I'm asking, because I really don't know.
His original post hit me entirely wrong.............I was down $600 at the
time. I finished tonight +$200 for the weekend.