A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Thank you for sharing your moronic perspective. According to you, if I give to the Leukemia Society but not the MS Society, I am not charitable.  Be certain I will wait impatiently for your response. 
    Posted by underdogg


    well you can wait awhile because obviously I was so on point you cannot respond to anything written here.  Just like St. Tony you are one and done as well in answering me.

    You gonna get Bill Polian to come and break my legs?  How about a complaint to the competition committee (moderators)? Because you can't compete.  Tis is second nature to Colts' fans
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpats - I did answer you.  That you don't like my answer or didn't get it is your problem. 

    As for your polian comments, I love it.  Just another pat fan who throws out negative words and unsubstantiated claims at colts fans because you can't accept the reality of your caught red handed cheating coach's actions.  

    For some reason we now have a rule that essentially requires a defender on the ground to stand before he may hit the QB.  I guess maybe the defender would not be penalized if he crawled to the QB and then asked permission to grab the QB.  Further, I cannot understand why this is named the Brady rule.  Do you know?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpats - I did answer you.  That you don't like my answer or didn't get it is your problem.  As for your polian comments, I love it.  Just another pat fan who throws out negative words and unsubstantiated claims at colts fans because you can't accept the reality of your caught red handed cheating coach's actions.   For some reason we now have a rule that essentially requires a defender on the ground to stand before he may hit the QB.  I guess maybe the defender would not be penalized if he crawled to the QB and then asked permission to grab the QB.  Further, I cannot understand why this is named the Brady rule.  Do you know?
    Posted by underdogg

    No I fuilly admit that BB broke a rule; Tom Curran fully substantiated his comments in ProJo a number of years ago

    you can't handle that Polian was outclassed in his hiring of a coach who could not get the Colts a consistent place beyond game 1 in the playoffs.  Hence four, one and Dungys.  A coach who wasted the prime of one of the greatest (if not the) passers of all time.  Hence both BP and TD cannot get any further.

    And again to refresh oyur memory, it was the Carson Palmer injury that started this nonsense.  The addition of Brady was a "point of emphasis".  As a Colts' fan, you can always appreciate that.

    and usually an answer addresses a person's actual statements including Dungy's intense dislike of gays; Mr. Tolerant as long as he agrees with it
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    No I fuilly admit that BB broke a rule; Tom Curran fully substantiated his comments in ProJo a number of years ago you can't handle that Polian was outclassed in his hiring of a coach who could not get the Colts a consistent place beyond game 1 in the playoffs.  Hence four, one and Dungys.  A coach who wasted the prime of one of the greatest (if not the) passers of all time.  Hence both BP and TD cannot get any further. And again to refresh oyur memory, it was the Carson Palmer injury that started this nonsense.  The addition of Brady was a "point of emphasis".  As a Colts' fan, you can always appreciate that. and usually an answer addresses a person's actual statements including Dungy's intense dislike of gays; Mr. Tolerant as long as he agrees with it
    Posted by provpats
    Just let me add if Dungy didn't speak at a rally of people who don't think gays should have the same rights as straight people, maybe people such as myself wouldn't think he was homophobic.  Funny how Dogg doesn't object when Polian protected the wimpy Colt's receivers against the bunp and run coverage through selective enforcement of the rules. I don't seem to remember Polian asking for the strict enforcement of the offensive holding rules.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpat - Did you mean the Tom Curran, local pats homer writer?  That Tom Curran?  

    I readily admit and have here frequently that Belichick is a remarkable coach which makes it even more outrageous that he resorted to cheating and continues to manipulate whereever and whenever he can in search of an advantage.  Who knows, he may be cheating now. 

    If Carson Palmer's injury was such a big deal, why didn't they add the rule after that?  Carson Palmer may be mentioned to solidify the reason for the change, but the only reason the change was made was because of Tom Brady and likely the pats call for something to be done. 

    Sox - Homophobic and hate are 2 different things and I don't think either can be proven by you.  All I know is that his religious beliefs are from where his stance on gay marriage comes.  Right or wrong, he is entitled to this belief and that neither makes him homophobic or a gay hater. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Well now, let's not discount the fact that the league is star (read: quarterback) driven. It's entirely possible that the league decided it would be a good idea to keep its most marketable stars upright without any help at all from Bill Belichick and his evil minions.
    Cool
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpat - Did you mean the Tom Curran, local pats homer writer?  That Tom Curran?   I readily admit and have here frequently that Belichick is a remarkable coach which makes it even more outrageous that he resorted to cheating and continues to manipulate whereever and whenever he can in search of an advantage.  Who knows, he may be cheating now.  If Carson Palmer's injury was such a big deal, why didn't they add the rule after that?  Carson Palmer may be mentioned to solidify the reason for the change, but the only reason the change was made was because of Tom Brady and likely the pats call for something to be done.  Sox - Homophobic and hate are 2 different things and I don't think either can be proven by you.  All I know is that his religious beliefs are from where his stance on gay marriage comes.  Right or wrong, he is entitled to this belief and that neither makes him homophobic or a gay hater. 
    Posted by underdogg


    In fact they did add the rule after that injury when the DE (whose name I can't remember Kimo Olhauffen perhaps?)took him out.  It prohibited deliberate hits below the knee on the QB. The big controversy around when Brady got hurt was that they ruled it was not covered by that.  Vince Wilfork got fined for violating the rule in 2007 with a hit on a Buffalo QB, so let's not get into that nonsense.  As I said, the addition of what happened to Brady is a "point of emphasis".  Please come a little more informed next time and in fact to show you what a good guy I am I will help you out of your miasma in this regard:

    Here is the link of the injury:  http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2290239

    and here is the wikipedia entry:

    During the off-season, the NFL Rules Committee modified the rule regarding low hits on quarterbacks, prohibiting defenders from hitting a passer at or below the knee unless they are blocked into him. Injuries to Palmer, Roethlisberger and then-Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Brian Griese (who re-signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) were cited as reasons for the new rule. The rule now requires that defenders take every opportunity to avoid hitting a quarterback at or below the knees when the quarterback is in a defenseless position looking to throw with both feet on the ground. There has been much controversy as to whether or not the play was legal. Some say the play was clean and that Von Oelhoffen was blocked into Carson Palmer. Others claim Von Oelhoffen purposely rolled up on Carson Palmer's knee. This is still the subject of much controversy. Von Oelhoffen was subsequently released by the Steelers following the 2005 season, [1] though he did win a Super Bowl ring in 2006 in his final season as a Steeler. [2

    So tell me what else has BB done that has violated league rules?  Made Polian made?  You have "spygate" to pacify your team's, coach's and star QB disgraceful PO record.  At least Polian has Buffalo to fall back on.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kmaxx. Show Kmaxx's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Why do people feel obligate to explain anything to Leon-light, the Colt troll?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    At least Polian has Buffalo to fall back on.


    But in Buffalo, though Polian gathered a lot of talent, they still failed to come through in the big game...four times in a row! That's not a whole lot better than the Colts. And the Bills could claim a much better defense than Indy ever had, except for the postseason in 06, when they did in fact win it all.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpat - Did you mean the Tom Curran, local pats homer writer?  That Tom Curran?   I readily admit and have here frequently that Belichick is a remarkable coach which makes it even more outrageous that he resorted to cheating and continues to manipulate whereever and whenever he can in search of an advantage.  Who knows, he may be cheating now.  If Carson Palmer's injury was such a big deal, why didn't they add the rule after that?  Carson Palmer may be mentioned to solidify the reason for the change, but the only reason the change was made was because of Tom Brady and likely the pats call for something to be done.  Sox - Homophobic and hate are 2 different things and I don't think either can be proven by you.  All I know is that his religious beliefs are from where his stance on gay marriage comes.  Right or wrong, he is entitled to this belief and that neither makes him homophobic or a gay hater. 
    Posted by underdogg
    I am glad you can make that distinction because I can't split the hairs like you can. It wasn't too long ago that states had laws denying people of color equal rights including that of intermarriage with whites. I guess using your logic, if someone attended a rally of people supporting that opinion it would be perfectly alright. I wonder if Dungy would feel the same or its just another case of hypocricy.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Dungy has always been politically motivated, this is no big deal and right up his ally. Can't fault him on his personal agendas to gain publicity in the pursuit of the american dreams, money, power, fame and notoriety.

    I for one am glad he is out of the rule making business of the NFL.

    Good riddance.

    Maybe his holiness was a regular at the dog fights and is looking to buy a pit bull cheapTongue out (humor)
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Sox - I am sorry you define the difference between not wanting something legislated and hate as splitting hairs.  I think a majority see it differently.  Unfortunately for you, in this situation, you have the religious faith and doctrine to contend with.  But I don't recall anything in the bible about the banning of interracial marriage.  So go ahead and continue to question the rationality of this issue.  And while you do, please know that there are islamic extremists who pray for your death so that they and their faith can rule this world.  And when do know this, please come back and remind me how legislation and hate are simply splitting hairs. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Sox - I am sorry you define the difference between not wanting something legislated and hate as splitting hairs.  I think a majority see it differently.  Unfortunately for you, in this situation, you have the religious faith and doctrine to contend with.  But I don't recall anything in the bible about the banning of interracial marriage.  So go ahead and continue to question the rationality of this issue.  And while you do, please know that there are islamic extremists who pray for your death so that they and their faith can rule this world.  And when do know this, please come back and remind me how legislation and hate are simply splitting hairs. 
    Posted by underdogg
    That is where we part company again because I am against extrmists of all types where as you support extremists that believe as you do. Getting back to the Bible, slavery was permitted so I would think that under your definition, a true believer could honestly be for the return of slavery in good conscience.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I'm one of "those people" as you put it. As a church going Catholic I resent your off base statement that I (or any practicing Catholic) wouldn't help a gay person because that's not what those people do. If you are making a reference to the Catholic Church's archaic and despicable stance on homosexuality/lesbianism involvement in the church then I would remind you that one doesn't have to subscribe to all the doctrine to be a member of any group. Nowhere in the churches teaching have I ever hear about helping your fellow man or woman unless they are gay. I'd be careful making such broad based and offensive statements. It makes you sound very ignorant.
    Posted by ROWDYRODRUST

    Actually, this kind of makes you sound a bit naive.

    Basically, you are saying that you belong to a group, but because you don't subscribe to ALL of the views of that group, others should somehow know this and somehow put you on a list of those who don't agree with that one particular view. I would love to hear the guy in the KKK robe say that he doesn't believe in the persecution of Jews so don't lump me in with those in this organization who do. You belong to the group. Therefore, you support the group. Therefore, to the rest of the world that sees you in that robe, you support the groups views regardless of your personal stance.

    BTW, my understanding on official church doctrine is that being gay is OK. A person who is gay of the Catholic god just as anyone else on earth. You just can't act on it. That is the sin. 

    And we thought religious radicals from Islam were kooky.

    BTW, I am not saying that you don't have a different view than the church on this matter. I am saying you are kind of naive to think that people will know your individual views when all they see is you walking into a church that expresses a different view.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    with Michael Vick rises to even an irrational example why you hate him.  Oh and Bub - while I am sure Manning would take back if he could his comments about his line, given Vanderjagt's initial statement, I think Manning would stand by his response (idiot kicker) until he kicked the bucket, and I applaud manning's response. 
    Posted by underdogg

    Of course, he would take back the time when he threw the team under the bus. He has actually already tried. Unfortunately for him, he already said it.

    The VDJ issue was different. That was also saying that VDJ spoke out of turn and that Manning was the leader of the team. It was the Alpha dog kicking the yappy wannabe back in line. And it was needed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Thank you Rowdy  Too many people have labelled those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman as haters of gays because this is the position that the gay community has so effectively made public.   Gay haters may not want gays to be allowed to be married BUT that does not mean that those that believe marriage is between a man and a women hate gays and are unwilling to help them.  
    Posted by underdogg


    Pure unadulterated sophistry. (That means BS.)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    provpats - I did answer you.  That you don't like my answer or didn't get it is your problem.  As for your polian comments, I love it.  Just another pat fan who throws out negative words and unsubstantiated claims at colts fans because you can't accept the reality of your caught red handed cheating coach's actions.   For some reason we now have a rule that essentially requires a defender on the ground to stand before he may hit the QB.  I guess maybe the defender would not be penalized if he crawled to the QB and then asked permission to grab the QB.  Further, I cannot understand why this is named the Brady rule.  Do you know?
    Posted by underdogg

    The difference in these cases is that Kraft and Belichick did not go to the NFL to whine and complain about it. It has been nicknamed the Brady rule because he is the most famous and most recent of the QBs to which it has happened. It is documented that Polian demanded an "emphasis" change in the bump rule and influenced the rules to be in the Colts favor.

    Oh, another difference - severity. Diving at any unprotected players knees should be pretty much ruled out in any case it can happen. It is a cheap shot and it can ruin a season or career. Receivers not being able to handle a bump speaks to physical and mental toughness of the receiver, but is not ever likely to put someone out for a single play let alone a season.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    All I know is that his religious beliefs are from where his stance on gay marriage comes.  Right or wrong, he is entitled to this belief and that neither makes him homophobic or a gay hater. 
    Posted by underdogg

    This statement would be hilarious were it not so tragic.

    Here is a quote from Dungy regading his support of the Indiana Family Institute's attempt to amend the Indiana constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman:
    "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote the family -- family values the Lord's way," Dungy said.

    The obvious failure of this lie is that by ACTUALLY promoting the ideals of the group he is ACTUALLY downgrading gays. 

    Look at it this way - "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote white values as being better." 

    Stop pretending one exists without the other. It is sad and sickening.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    This statement would be hilarious were it not so tragic. Here is a quote from Dungy regading his support of the Indiana Family Institute's attempt to amend the Indiana constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman: "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote the family -- family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. The obvious failure of this lie is that by ACTUALLY promoting the ideals of the group he is ACTUALLY downgrading gays.  Look at it this way - "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote white values as being better."  Stop pretending one exists without the other. It is sad and sickening.
    Posted by EnochRoot
    What I find hypocritical is that people like Dungy treat the Bible like it was a cafeteria choosing what suits them. As I stated before slavery and polygamy are permitted in the bible and homsexual acts and pork are condemned.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Pure unadulterated sophistry. (That means BS.)
    Posted by EnochRoot
    why?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    The difference in these cases is that Kraft and Belichick did not go to the NFL to whine and complain about it. It has been nicknamed the Brady rule because he is the most famous and most recent of the QBs to which it has happened. It is documented that Polian demanded an "emphasis" change in the bump rule and influenced the rules to be in the Colts favor. Oh, another difference - severity. Diving at any unprotected players knees should be pretty much ruled out in any case it can happen. It is a cheap shot and it can ruin a season or career. Receivers not being able to handle a bump speaks to physical and mental toughness of the receiver, but is not ever likely to put someone out for a single play let alone a season.
    Posted by EnochRoot


    Do you have information the rest of us don't?  How do you know the pats did not go to the league?  Because a public statement to that effect was not made?  Seems that I recall the patriots media policy is to essentially say nothing at all. 

    Yes, polian did ask that the rule be called as written.  He did not ask for an emphasis.  As far as I know he said, this is the rule and it is not being called and here are the examples.  What good is a rule if it is not enforced?  The only real difference is that Polian isn't secretly deceptive like Belichick.  He's man enough to publicly state what he thinks.  Belichick is a weasel. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    What I find hypocritical is that people like Dungy treat the Bible like it was a cafeteria choosing what suits them. As I stated before slavery and polygamy are permitted in the bible and homsexual acts and pork are condemned.
    Posted by flasox


    Was that slavery and polygamy old testament or new testament?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Let's ease up on the Bible bashing everyone.  Football ends every February, but eternity is forever. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Do you have information the rest of us don't?  How do you know the pats did not go to the league?  Because a public statement to that effect was not made?  Seems that I recall the patriots media policy is to essentially say nothing at all.  Yes, polian did ask that the rule be called as written.  He did not ask for an emphasis.  As far as I know he said, this is the rule and it is not being called and here are the examples.  What good is a rule if it is not enforced?  The only real difference is that Polian isn't secretly deceptive like Belichick.  He's man enough to publicly state what he thinks.  Belichick is a weasel. 
    Posted by underdogg


    why do you do this to yourself?  The POE was a direct result of Polian and Dungy's wah-wah act:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/03/22/patriots_can_chuck_this_hope/

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E2DC1E30F93AA25752C0A9619C8B63

    If you are going to converse with us learned Patriots' fans you need to raise your game substantially.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Was that slavery and polygamy old testament or new testament?
    Posted by underdogg
    I thought that Dungy believed in both.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share