BUML Preview Round 7
Div 1 – Well Done
Bermuda Triangle v Poachers
Poachers are on a roll at the moment. They haven’t lost a game since round 1. I think they will be too strong here.
Poachers by 7
Drop Bears v Dyspnoeics
Dyspnoeics had a come from behind win last time these 2 titans of the Ultimate field clashed. This game comes down to how the Dyspneoics stifling D contains the long game of the Bears. My tip for this game's rating on the Pete Allen Niceness Scale is a whopping 92%.
Drop Bears by 3
UQ AUG v Cadillac
This game will go hard for UQ if they continue to play with low numbers. Athleticism and effort (being young) will only get you so far against a team of experienced campaigners (old folks) like Cadillac. The biggest question will be whether Atlas turns up clean shaven or with a deliberately manscaped bit of stubble.
Cadillac by 5
Div 2 – Medium
Tsunami v Chimichangas
Chimichangas are a revelation this season. Clearly their off season recruiting has worked a treat. This could be an important game in Tsunami’s season as they are in a tight tussle for 4th at the moment.
Chimichangas by 4
Griffith A-Team v The Ghost Who Walks
This will be the only time these 2 teams meet in the regular season. Considering they are both chasing a finals berth, it could provide a key mental edge to the winner if they meet in October. Ghost are a force this season and should be too strong here.
GWW by 7
Heroes v UQ Fluttershy
Poor Fluttershy. They came SOOOO close last week. The real question is will it encourage the youngsters from UQ, or make them feel like a win is impossible. I think Tomsteve will get them up for this match, but Heroes will get the lollies.
Heroes by 2
Agents v What The Huck?
I think for Agents to have any hope they need to shut down WTH?s long receivers. When the Huckers get near the endzone they have a tendency to bomb it for a hopefully easy score. Stick to your player and WTH may get impatient. I still think WTH? will be too strong.
WTH? by 6
Div 3 – Rare
Ultimate Apostles v Slipped Discs
The Ultimate Apostles are certainly a cocky bunch. Why not though when you are leading the division and undefeated? I tipped an upset last week and it almost came off with UA scraping home by 2. I’ll be tipping UA this week as the Slipped Discs have struggled to defend this season, letting in an avg of 14.1 points per game.
UA by 9
Griffith Go Yeahs v Mellow Yellow
This should be the most even Div 3 match this round. The Bananas are just doing enough when they win, while the Go Yeahs are certainly putting a few more points on. It’s the Go Yeahs O v the Yellows D here and I think the adage of defence wins premierships will shine through.
Mellow Yellow by 2
Dump and Burn v Griffith Aunties
The final game of the round should be entertaining affair. How the Aunties handle the disc will be the decisive issue. They are the lowest scoring team in Div 3. I wonder if Dump and Burn employ the tactics their name suggests?
D&B by 4
11 comments:
The comment "When the Huckers get near the endzone they have a tendency to bomb it for a hopefully easy score" doesn't really make sense.
Doesn't 'bombing' it normally mean a somewhat long throw? So for them to throw a 'bomb' from near the end zone would mean that it would go out the back. Unless I'm missing something...
Re: Bomb. I use bomb as a fairly generic term for a 'big' throw. True a bomb can be long, but it could also be cross field. If you were 25 metres out and threw a big cross field hammer, i'd classify that as a bomb, even though the throw is not a long one.
Oh and I think I figured out what you're missing! It's a name :O
That makes sense if the argument is that the Huckers repeatedly use cross field hammers to score - I'm not sure whether that is the case (it may well be). Although I imagine a Div 2 team does not often have recourse to long, cross field hammers :)
Anyway, thanks for the preview in general.
Long cross field hammer is my classic disrespect your div 2 zone throw. That said there are about 3-4 people in the division who should throw them.
This is a case it is hard to take someone seriously if they post anonymously.
That may be true if I was saying deliberately inflammatory things, which I don't think I have. I was merely seeking clarification.
To automatically disregard something that someone says because they are anonymous on an internet forum is intellectually lazy. If there is an argument (and I don't think there is in this case - merely an observation), then the way to win that argument is to defeat the other person's point. Merely sitting there and saying "you are anonymous therefore your argument is invalid" is a little too cute. To the extent that the argument is valid, it makes no difference whether (for example) it was said by a BUML player or Barack Obama.
Again though, no argument exists here, so it's largely a moot point.
He/She is calling you cute Jangles. You'd be in if you knew who they were!
Cute in the "Shrewd; clever" definition that the online "Free Dictionary by Farlex" gives me.
Plus there are good reasons for anonymity - if one goes into politics for example, they may not want things from 30 years ago that are cached on some server (is that where things are cached? who knows) somewhere coming back to bite them (although the chances of a frisbee post being controversial are slim, I admit).
Anyway, I digress.
Hey i'm not one to judge if you think he's cute. Jangles is a good looking guy. Whatever floats your boat.
This week I would agree with the Apostles prediction, the injury plagued team might struggle after a lovefest hangover. Should be a good game.
And not to be Anit-Mellow, but I wish Griffith best of luck, mucho respecto after the wooden spoon game on Saturday, was the real lovefest final.
For the record, I also think @Jangles us cute.
lots of man love for jangles.
Anonymous man love, is that like "glory hole" love?
Man, way to ruin a conversation by talking about ultimate Marcus.
Post a Comment