Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to would be Doogs
Comments
-
Ima Ride-or-Die with the 2000 team. They could handle the pressure and dish it out. Tui had too many talents and that Jordan-esque will to win. 2000 was the last of the BAMF defenses from the 90s.
-
Over Jones and King?creepycoug said:
Vontoure.RoadDawg55 said:
This is a fair rebuttal. The 2000 team always found a way. There are still so many spots they would seemingly get destroyed by the 2016 team.whlinder said:And yet somehow 2000 beat 2000 the U which was slightly more talented than 2016 Washington.
Slightly.
We crushed teams running the ball with Sample and Dissly. The 2016 defense is way better than 2000. Triplett, Pharms, Daniels, and Akbar are the only guys that could start on the 2016 team. -
That defense was pretty good butt far from BAMF.pawz said:Ima Ride-or-Die with the 2000 team. They could handle the pressure and dish it out. Tui had too many talents and that Jordan-esque will to win. 2000 was the last of the BAMF defenses from the 90s.
2016 was a much better defense. -
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup. -
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
-
dnc said:
That defense was pretty good butt far from BAMF.pawz said:Ima Ride-or-Die with the 2000 team. They could handle the pressure and dish it out. Tui had too many talents and that Jordan-esque will to win. 2000 was the last of the BAMF defenses from the 90s.
2016 was a much better defense.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
I take mental toughness over talent every. day. of the week.
2000 had it in spades, it was a muscle exercised week in and week out. they knew they would overcome.
no better example in my lifetim than the last 1:04 of '00 Stanford (i know, not defense, but still ..)
-
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts. -
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts. -
DoogCourics said:RoadDawg55 said:
I’m dooging again. I don’t care. The past two weeks have been great.
I also see glimpses of greatness. Hard not to appreciate some of the guys and their efforts. First time in years we didn’t have clenched buttholes and pulled out a big comeback win.
I feel personally attacked. -
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
