[DEV] ISFL Forums
*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - Printable Version

+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing (/showthread.php?tid=3245)

Pages: 1 2 3


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - AsylumParty - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 01:24 PM)tlk742 Wrote:Only 1 Arizona receiver has more yards than me.
Chess? Evans? Both taken ahead of me in the draft, both behind me in yards, YPC and longest.  Yeah TD win games, but man it's gonna suck when you play on the road and you gotta rely on Bronko.

You can either attack the receivers or Bronko. You don't get to choose both. No one says DeAndre Hopkins is bad because Osweiler couldn't hit him. On the other hand, attacking Bronkos capability doesn't make sense if it's the receivers that are at fault.

So which is more important, you looking good, or Bronko looking bad?


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - ErMurazor - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 10:49 AM)tlk742 Wrote:Didn't know hosting the liberty and otters at home and playing the legion showed that it was an all star defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5k9JutOro


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - YoloSwag420 - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 03:20 AM)tlk742 Wrote:I debated about it, but with the potential that they had to audit the entire wraiths roster until the person put in that it was a joke post, I just wanted to make sure.

the joke was yall bein cheaters. if people dont lose tpe or i dont get mine back then i might have to redo my article as facts.


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - DeathOnReddit - 08-11-2017

The only team that worries me are the outlaws offense. Because if theyre on point, then none of you losers can beat us.


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - 4D Chess - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 11:24 AM)tlk742 Wrote:Yeah TD win games



*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - tlk742 - 08-11-2017

and wraiths have more than the outlaws, in both air and ground. We cant help that divine intervention prevents Dermott from getting pick sixes.


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - 124715 - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 01:24 PM)tlk742 Wrote:oooooh oooh are we throwing down?  Let's do it.

Ok so Arizona has a great defense, but it weird because they haven't gone to Yellowknife, and it's true while of the receivers of West Garden and myself I am easily not putting the stats to the power as I did have a down few weeks, lets keep a few things in mind.

Only 1 Arizona receiver has more yards than me.
Chess? Evans? Both taken ahead of me in the draft, both behind me in yards, YPC and longest.  Yeah TD win games, but man it's gonna suck when you play on the road and you gotta rely on Bronko.

They have 2 S1 1000-yd receivers and the 3rd best rookie WR in terms of yards. YKW gonna stress the secondary HARD.


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - White Cornerback - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 06:36 PM)tlk742 Wrote:[quote author=4D Chess date=1502475660]
and wraiths have more than the outlaws, in both air and ground. We cant help that divine intervention prevents Dermott from getting pick sixes.[/quote]

I took a knee on the 1yd line to let Nuck claim the TD


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - tlk742 - 08-11-2017

(08-11-2017, 12:55 PM)AsylumParty Wrote:You can either attack the receivers or Bronko. You don't get to choose both. No one says DeAndre Hopkins is bad because Osweiler couldn't hit him. On the other hand, attacking Bronkos capability doesn't make sense if it's the receivers that are at fault.

So which is more important, you looking good, or Bronko looking bad?
I've been a Jets fan for years, it's not mutually exclusive.


*The Arizona Outlaws - How to win by losing - youngcricket - 08-11-2017

i still dont get what you're saying