Colts perspective

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

    Colts perspective

    Texas Pat frequently likes to use Indy's local columnist Bob Kravitz to get my goat.  Kravitz is a perfect columnist antagonist, but he has lost his sensibilities here because he actually has something good to say about the colts. 

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20090804/SPORTS15/908040316/1034/SPORTS15/Colts+in+trouble?+No++they+re+better+than+last+year

    I have said that I think the colts can be better this year.  As Kravitz mentions (and we all know) health is the key.  Even with good depth the loss of multiple starters affects overall play. 

    That said, I am not sure that the colts injuries (other than Manning out) could be much worse:

    Missed games by starters:

    QB (1):  0 games (0%) - MVP
    RB (1):  4 games (25%) - played hurt most of the year
    WR (3):  1 game (2%) - but lets be honest - Harrison was a liability.
    TE (1):  1 game (6%) - solid
    OL (5):  25 games (34%) - and multiple games with very hurt starters

    DT (2):  28 games (88%) - lets just say that these positions will look different (and larger) than last year.  Avg size of starters for most games: 260#
    DE (2):  1 game (3%) - solid 
    LB (3):  7 games (15%) - weak here and playing hurt.  Not much depth
    DB  (4):  26 games (41%) - we have great depth here. 

    I don't need to preach injuries.  You are well aware.  What I know is that OL even when playing played very hurt as did the LB and RB positions.  Even with relatively good health, the colts will be significantly deeper and likely more effective. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from justme2. Show justme2's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Hey Underdogg
    You point can be appreciated but you are going to get flamed bigtime for this post..  The Patriots are known for "the man behind the man" philosophy. No that's not some gay sloagan. It is a the way they do business here. One guy goes down and the next guy steps in. never is there expected to be a major let down in the level of play.  If you check the man games lost to injury, the Patriots have the highest percentage over the last 9 years.. And we haven't even discussed last year..
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Healthy or not I think the Colts are a wild card team at best. I think the window for a title has closed and now you will be left with a good NFL QB and a bad NFL coachign staff. Your head coach at the very least will have first year struggles, your DC is gone and half your roster is injury prone. I think the Titans are going to run it down your throats all year with teh smash and dash combo and the Texans beat you at least once this year. You will sweep the Jags but so will everyone else.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    Hey Underdogg You point can be appreciated but you are going to get flamed bigtime for this post..  The Patriots are known for "the man behind the man" philosophy. No that's not some gay sloagan. It is a the way they do business here. One guy goes down and the next guy steps in. never is there expected to be a major let down in the level of play.  If you check the man games lost to injury, the Patriots have the highest percentage over the last 9 years.. And we haven't even discussed last year..
    Posted by justme2


    me2,

    I understand your point, and the colts went 12-4 with significant injuries last year, so I think we are singing from the same book.  That said, and you can talk "the man behind the man" all you want.  There is always going to be some kind of drop off from starter to second string - unless the coach is favoring an over the hill vet due to experience - like (IMO) bb did with R. Harrison and Dungy did with M. Harrison last year.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    Healthy or not I think the Colts are a wild card team at best. I think the window for a title has closed and now you will be left with a good NFL QB and a bad NFL coachign staff. Your head coach at the very least will have first year struggles, your DC is gone and half your roster is injury prone. I think the Titans are going to run it down your throats all year with teh smash and dash combo and the Texans beat you at least once this year. You will sweep the Jags but so will everyone else.
    Posted by MVPkilla


    Tas -  When I read your words about the colts for some reason I see the pats in exactly what you are saying.  

    With the exception of the HC (who the org prepped for this for the last 2 years), the pats also lost a coordinator and were very injury prone last year. 

    By the way - the old OC and Line coach were both back at colts training camp doing what they have done for the past decade. 

    As for the Titans - they better take it around the end, because the interior has been shored up significantly.  Did you know our starting D tackles (as cut and paste) averaged 260# last year.  This year my bet is that avg goes to 300# with talent not just weight. 

    Conventional wisdom has the colts losing some of their spark, but I agree with Kravitz, I think the colts are better and may be the best bet to go to the SB in the AFC. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    You are crazy, the Colts are set for a down year and everyone see's it coming except for you Colts fans.

    The Pats did in deed lose their OC this offseason you are correct however the Pats unlike the Colts have shown the ability to lose a coach and move on. Over the years lots of Belichick guys have left for head coaching jobs and they have all failed with out belichick but Belichick continues his success with out them. Belichick is the guy in NE, his staff is great and they are smart but they can all be replaced so long as Belichick is the head coach. You can not say the same about the Colts. Dungy was the best coach you had and he retired. Whether you have been preping this new guy or not means nothing to me. If he wins 13 or 14 games in his first year as a head coach then i am wrong about him but if he slips up what so ever your claim that you will be fine cause he was preped by the team before Dungy left is BS. And all bringing in your old OC and Oline coach proves is that your team is scared as he ll to move forward with out them. They retired and your team freaked out and paniced so much that they came back. So are they retired or not?


    And the Pats have always been injury prone, not just last year the difference is even when we are injury prone we are a contender and you cant say the same. Every single time we won a super bowl we had key players on IR. We dont need to stay healthy to win.

    And who are these so called monsters in the middle you keep talking about? Did you sign Albert haynsworth or something cause last time I check I didnt even know your DT's names but according to you they are pro bowl DT's. Did Vince Wilfork switch to your team or something? I dont think your D line is as strong as you say they are. Just cause you bring in a bigger DT does not mean you will be any better.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from N2thaIzzo. Show N2thaIzzo's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    The Colts will easily win their division.  Titans will not be the same defensively without Hanesworth clogging up the middle.  If Gonzales can step it up a notch more to replace Harrison's production, then the offense will still be deadly.  They may have lost Dungy, but the real coach on that team was Manning anyway.  How many times have you seen Dungy send in the punt team and Manning trump him?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    You are crazy, the Colts are set for a down year and everyone see's it coming except for you Colts fans. The Pats did in deed lose their OC this offseason you are correct however the Pats unlike the Colts have shown the ability to lose a coach and move on. Over the years lots of Belichick guys have left for head coaching jobs and they have all failed with out belichick but Belichick continues his success with out them. Belichick is the guy in NE, his staff is great and they are smart but they can all be replaced so long as Belichick is the head coach. You can not say the same about the Colts. Dungy was the best coach you had and he retired. Whether you have been preping this new guy or not means nothing to me. If he wins 13 or 14 games in his first year as a head coach then i am wrong about him but if he slips up what so ever your claim that you will be fine cause he was preped by the team before Dungy left is BS. And all bringing in your old OC and Oline coach proves is that your team is scared as he ll to move forward with out them. They retired and your team freaked out and paniced so much that they came back. So are they retired or not? And the Pats have always been injury prone, not just last year the difference is even when we are injury prone we are a contender and you cant say the same. Every single time we won a super bowl we had key players on IR. We dont need to stay healthy to win. And who are these so called monsters in the middle you keep talking about? Did you sign Albert haynsworth or something cause last time I check I didnt even know your DT's names but according to you they are pro bowl DT's. Did Vince Wilfork switch to your team or something? I dont think your D line is as strong as you say they are. Just cause you bring in a bigger DT does not mean you will be any better.
    Posted by MVPkilla


    1.  How would we know anything about the colts ability to succeed after the loss of a coach?  It hasn't happened to any significance in years.  Your suggestion, true or false, has no basis in fact. 

    2.  So in your opinion the only way this new coach can be considered successful is to win 13-14 games this season.  Seriously? In 14 years as a head coach, Belichick has had only 3 seasons with more than 12 wins yet you set the 13 for this new head coach as the minimum benchmark to define success.  You should rethink this one. 

    3.  The team is not scared.  The only reason the coaches retired in the first place was because of the stupid pension opt out rule that was pushed through by the likes of owners like Kraft.  Too bad his attempt to disrupt the colts coaching staff didn't work out. 

    4.  In 2007 the Pats were very healthy - harrison missed 5, seymour 8, Watson 8, Neal 8.  Other remarkably healthy otherwise.  2006 looked like a healthy year, too. 05-looks like some injuries. 04 - very healthy.  Not sure from where this "we were so injured" myth comes by pats fans.  

    5.  Look, given the wide open gates called indy d tackles last year, any thing different will be better.  Ultimately, we brought in an FA near the end of the year last year antonio Johnson who played well and is big.  We brought Ed Johnson back who was a starting rookie throughout 07 but was cut for pot last year.  We drafted 2 d tackles including Moala out of USC in the second round.  All are 300 pounders.  We should be much better at that position which will significantly help the run d.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    4.  In 2007 the Pats were very healthy - harrison missed 5, seymour 8, Watson 8, Neal 8.  Other remarkably healthy otherwise.  2006 looked like a healthy year, too. 05-looks like some injuries. 04 - very healthy.  Not sure from where this "we were so injured" myth comes by pats fans.


    You did not mention Colvin who was having a great year, his speed getting to the QB was missed in the playoffs, remember how he sealed a 24-20 win stripping Manning in Indy?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Pats09 - Not suggesting that there weren't any injuries, just that there were not significant injuries. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    In Response to Re: Colts perspective : 1.  How would we know anything about the colts ability to succeed after the loss of a coach?  It hasn't happened to any significance in years.  Your suggestion, true or false, has no basis in fact. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Umm, but above you note that the Pats will be worse off than the Colts because they lost their OC. So, does the loss of a coach mean good things, bad things or is it undecided as you now state? 

    I will just stop refuting your other points here because it is already obvious that you will just say what you want to back up what you are saying at the time. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    3.  The team is not scared.  The only reason the coaches retired in the first place was because of the stupid pension opt out rule that was pushed through by the likes of owners like Kraft.  Too bad his attempt to disrupt the colts coaching staff didn't work out..
    Posted by underdogg


    Whoops, I lied. What you write above is just stampede blue propaganda. The issue is not that several businesses decided to opt out of the NFL pension plan to create a better, more cost effective one for their personnel. The issue is that by Federal law, pension plans have to have 80% of projected liabilities to pay full lump-sum benefits. This means that funding levels into the NFL pension plan might (repeat might) vary by the other teams in which Howard Mudd coached. Due to this uncertainty caused by the other teams non-commitment to funding, Mudd chose to retire while he could get the lump sum payout. So, why aren't you blaming Mudd for being greedy and impatient? Or the other teams that Mudd stole signals for that aren't committing to funding upfront? Or Manning (see below)?

    And are you sure that everyone on the team isn't scared? Manning sure sounded scared when he forced Mudd out of retirement and into a consulting role with the Colts so he could feel more comfortable. Sure was nice of Manning to indirectly bully Mudd in the press to make this 67 year old man unretire.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    The Colts have gone at least 12-4 all decade as far as I can recall.  Until Peyton Manning retires, I don't see that changing. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Umm, but above you note that the Pats will be worse off than the Colts because they lost their OC.

    Really?  I noted that?  For the life of me I have no idea where I noted that above.  How about you show me where I noted that above?  I think you may be misinterpretting me or attempting to put your words in my mouth. 

    So, does the loss of a coach mean good things, bad things or is it undecided as you now state? 

    To answer your question, I think it depends on the team.  I am not sure the loss of Dungy will be substantial.  I actually think the Colts Defense (whether by better health, upgraded personnel/ or a new coordinator or all of the above) will be better than last year.  Couldn't be much worse against the run.  

    I will just stop refuting your other points here because it is already obvious that you will just say what you want to back up what you are saying at the time. 

    Its best to stop refuting because your perspective in this matter is entirely off point.  And, if I have a point, then I would generally say what was necessary to back it up.  How do you defend a statement?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    In Response to Re: Colts perspective : Whoops, I lied. What you write above is just stampede blue propaganda. The issue is not that several businesses decided to opt out of the NFL pension plan to create a better, more cost effective one for their personnel. The issue is that by Federal law, pension plans have to have 80% of projected liabilities to pay full lump-sum benefits. This means that funding levels into the NFL pension plan might (repeat might) vary by the other teams in which Howard Mudd coached. Due to this uncertainty caused by the other teams non-commitment to funding, Mudd chose to retire while he could get the lump sum payout. So, why aren't you blaming Mudd for being greedy and impatient? Or the other teams that Mudd stole signals for that aren't committing to funding upfront? Or Manning (see below)? And are you sure that everyone on the team isn't scared? Manning sure sounded scared when he forced Mudd out of retirement and into a consulting role with the Colts so he could feel more comfortable. Sure was nice of Manning to indirectly bully Mudd in the press to make this 67 year old man unretire.
    Posted by EnochRoot


    I confess, I was just baiting.  thanks for the bite.  All's well.  Mudd and Moore are at camp. 

    But don't kid yourself, if the opt out had not been pushed by the teams that did opt out (NE Pats, cough) this never would have been an issue.  As for propaganda here is the line: "the issue is not that several businesses decided to opt out of the NFL pension plan to create a better, more cost effective one for their personnel". (who wrote that??)  

    my comments about the colts not being scared, as you know, was opinion.  Why (as someone who likes to display his smarts through big words) attempt to try to make me look bad by suggesting it was something else?  How petty. 

    What facts do you have to suggest that Manning forced Mudd out of retirement?  Seems to me that you actually answered the reason why Mudd was forced to retire in the first place.  If his financial security (I think you called it greed) forced this decision, then his true desire was to not retire.  So in my opinion (since you aren't capable of discerning opinion from fact) Mudd is back doing what he wanted and is financially secure to boot.  Best of both worlds - in my opinion.   
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    NO PLAYOFFS FOR INDY THIS YEAR
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective


    Umm, but above you note that the Pats will be worse off than the Colts because they lost their OC. Really?  I noted that?  For the life of me I have no idea where I noted that above.  How about you show me where I noted that above?  I think you may be misinterpretting me or attempting to put your words in my mouth.  
    Posted by underdogg

    Wow, talk about your lack of intellectual integrity or even simply integrity.

    This is how the post I was referring to reads today.
    When I read your words about the colts for some reason I see the pats in exactly what you are saying.  
    With the exception of the HC (who the org prepped for this for the last 2 years), the pats also lost a coordinator and were very injury prone last year.  


    Last night, there was a conclusion stating that the Pats would be worse off. Nice edit. Bad lie.

    And, if I have a point, then I would generally say what was necessary to back it up.  How do you defend a statement?
    Posted by underdogg

    Oh, you sell yourself short. You inflate what you need and disregard select facts because they do not back up your point. At best, this is called lying. And, no, I don't say "what is necessary" to back up a point. That, too, is lying. I generally find facts and let them speak for themselves.

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    Alright, I'm glad we got that out of our system.  (As if.  This one will be rehashed over and over before the season begins.)  IMHO, I think both teams will be significantly improved this year if you assume reasonable health.  Injuries played a significant part (as they always do) in the 2008 season, and the Colts and Pats were two of the worst hit teams.  The Colts have more than their usual amount of system tweaks going on right now, particularly with the addition of blitzes and other aggressive tweaks to their "bend but don't break" D.  Plus, the receiving corps has to step up and continue to produce great results without Marvin.  The Pats, on the other hand, are trying to integrate new CBs who may be able to re-start their careers (Bodden and Springs), and find pass-rushers.  They also seem to be moving to a more ball-control O (with Fred Taylor and two new TEs, I've got to assume that's what's going on), possibly in response to anticipated set-backs in Brady's progress.  Both teams have a lot going on this off-season.  I know the standard Pat fan stance is, "The Colts will regress because Dungy and Marvin are gone."  As a Colt fan, I am excited by the changes and new blood.  I see a great year out of the Colts.  I hate to say it (because I'm definitely not a BB fan), but I see a similar turn-around for the Pats.  Both teams typically make good moves to improve every year.  Looking forward to seeing the Pats in Indy this year...we Colt fans are feeling pretty confident for that game at this point...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    In Response to Re: Colts perspective : 1.  How would we know anything about the colts ability to succeed after the loss of a coach?  It hasn't happened to any significance in years.  Your suggestion, true or false, has no basis in fact.  2.  So in your opinion the only way this new coach can be considered successful is to win 13-14 games this season.  Seriously? In 14 years as a head coach, Belichick has had only 3 seasons with more than 12 wins yet you set the 13 for this new head coach as the minimum benchmark to define success.  You should rethink this one.  3.  The team is not scared.  The only reason the coaches retired in the first place was because of the stupid pension opt out rule that was pushed through by the likes of owners like Kraft.  Too bad his attempt to disrupt the colts coaching staff didn't work out.  4.  In 2007 the Pats were very healthy - harrison missed 5, seymour 8, Watson 8, Neal 8.  Other remarkably healthy otherwise.  2006 looked like a healthy year, too. 05-looks like some injuries. 04 - very healthy.  Not sure from where this "we were so injured" myth comes by pats fans.   5.  Look, given the wide open gates called indy d tackles last year, any thing different will be better.  Ultimately, we brought in an FA near the end of the year last year antonio Johnson who played well and is big.  We brought Ed Johnson back who was a starting rookie throughout 07 but was cut for pot last year.  We drafted 2 d tackles including Moala out of USC in the second round.  All are 300 pounders.  We should be much better at that position which will significantly help the run d.
    Posted by underdogg
    Are you a moron? Kraft didn't try and run your two old geezer coaches your own ownership is in charge of the rules commitees!!! Listen your team is good but don't come onto the Patriots board talking smack cause your team ain't about Championships it's about duping you morons out of new Stadiums!!! Then when they don't win,they tell you they were injured and thats why they lost,again!!!Have no fear this Patriots team will succeed again this year unless there is another late hit on Brady's knee.Then even then the team will still win at least 11 games cause they are deep at every position,Oh by the way the Patriots will have a new Tackle for your new 300 pound tackles to try and get around he's 6'8" 315 pounds of immovable object so tell your midgets to get themselves a step ladder.We are the Patriots!!!!! Remember the Patriots!!!!! Mighty,Mighty Patriots!!!! See you at the oil drum!!!!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    In Response to Re: Colts perspective : I confess, I was just baiting.  thanks for the bite.  All's well.  Mudd and Moore are at camp.  But don't kid yourself, if the opt out had not been pushed by the teams that did opt out (NE Pats, cough) this never would have been an issue.  As for propaganda here is the line: "the issue is not that several businesses decided to opt out of the NFL pension plan to create a better, more cost effective one for their personnel". (who wrote that??)   my comments about the colts not being scared, as you know, was opinion.  Why (as someone who likes to display his smarts through big words) attempt to try to make me look bad by suggesting it was something else?  How petty.  What facts do you have to suggest that Manning forced Mudd out of retirement?  Seems to me that you actually answered the reason why Mudd was forced to retire in the first place.  If his financial security (I think you called it greed) forced this decision, then his true desire was to not retire.  So in my opinion (since you aren't capable of discerning opinion from fact) Mudd is back doing what he wanted and is financially secure to boot.  Best of both worlds - in my opinion.   
    Posted by underdogg

    Mudd was actually looking into the lump sum payment BEFORE the pension plan changed. People generally do this when they are looking to retire. He also was concerned about how the current economy had affected his pension. 

    And, you do know why the plan was pushed, don't you? Well, apparently not. "It's the economy, stupid." The current economic climate had each team paying into the NFL pension plan more than twice what they were paying the previous year. The payment went from 40 MM to 90 MM per year. So, a change was necessary. Now, you really need to point the finger at those teams that had not paid their fair share already - you know, the skinflints that Mudd used to work for. The Colts, to their credit, did actually pony up their portion. So, you are going to go against the fiscally responsible teams and not even mention the teams that weren't responsible to the plan to begin with. Good call. Do you work for GM or something?

    And, yes, Manning whinnied and stamped his feet to ensure that he was taken care of. Part of that was ensuring Mudd and Moore would be back so he wouldn't ever feel uncomfortable. That was a conclusion based on the events (his media complaints that the current coaching staff was not communicating their plan to him.) and the fact that Manning is a selfish whiner. You can't say he isn't because his actions have always shown that he is Peyton first, team second. Did he actually force Mudd to unretire. No, that was just payback because you are a turd.

    Out of curiousity, how did I try to "make you look bad" by disagreeing with your contention that the entire Colts team wasn't afraid? A tad sensitive, aren't you.

    Lastly, I am not apologetic that big words intimidate you. How I write is how I think and speak. It would be patronizing if I had to dumb things down just for you to feel more comfortable. However, if you actually can't understand them, then I will make sure to use smaller words.

     
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    NO PLAYOFFS FOR INDY THIS YEAR
    Posted by jbolted


    I guess that means no playoff wins for the Chargers this year, too! That is if the Chargers can even make the playoffs themselves!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    It may be that the Colts take a step back this year (or it may not), but I still don't see a team in that division tough enough to take them. Count me among those who believe Tennessee was a mirage last year . . .  and where is all this Texans love coming from. That team blows almost as bad as Jacksonville. Same old same old for Indy. Win the division handily and flame in the playoffs.

    What's for lunch?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    It may be that the Colts take a step back this year (or it may not), but I still don't see a team in that division tough enough to take them. Count me among those who believe Tennessee was a mirage last year . . .  and where is all this Texans love coming from. That team blows almost as bad as Jacksonville. Same old same old for Indy. Win the division handily and flame in the playoffs. What's for lunch?
    Posted by prairiemike


    Agreed.  Unless they get Kansas City in the first round.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Umm, but above you note that the Pats will be worse off than the Colts because they lost their OC. Really?  I noted that?  For the life of me I have no idea where I noted that above.  How about you show me where I noted that above?  I think you may be misinterpretting me or attempting to put your words in my mouth.  
    Posted by underdogg

    Wow, talk about your lack of intellectual integrity or even simply integrity.

    This is how the post I was referring to reads today.
    When I read your words about the colts for some reason I see the pats in exactly what you are saying.  
    With the exception of the HC (who the org prepped for this for the last 2 years), the pats also lost a coordinator and were very injury prone last year.  

    Yep, those were my words.  And Tas' description of the colts seemed similar to that of the pats which is why I wrote what I wrote.  So, exactly where does my statement say that the pats will be worse off than the colts? 

    Last night, there was a conclusion stating that the Pats would be worse off. Nice edit. Bad lie. 

    Sorry, my friend, I only was pointing out that the pats looked similar to the colts in losing coaches and being injured.  Your overinterpretation skills must frequently get the best of you in your daily life.  Too bad.

    And, if I have a point, then I would generally say what was necessary to back it up.  How do you defend a statement?
    Posted by underdogg

    Oh, you sell yourself short. You inflate what you need and disregard select facts because they do not back up your point. At best, this is called lying. And, no, I don't say "what is necessary" to back up a point. That, too, is lying. I generally find facts and let them speak for themselves.

    Apparently you simply choose not to care for my facts or place more importance on other facts that better support your side of the arguement.  This is beginning to sound like a Washington debate.  As for lying, trust me you fly more stretches of the truth (see your previous post) than 90% of the people here.  Just because you know how disingeniuous you are doesn't mean you simply apply it to me because I challenge your comments. 

    Here's a stretch - "
    Mudd was actually looking into the lump sum payment BEFORE the pension plan changed". Nice Spin.  Do you actually know this or are you assuming it because "People generally do this when they are looking to retire".

    And, you do know why the plan was pushed, don't you? Well, apparently not. "It's the economy, stupid." The current economic climate had each team paying into the NFL pension plan more than twice what they were paying the previous year. The payment went from 40 MM to 90 MM per year. So, a change was necessary. Now, you really need to point the finger at those teams that had not paid their fair share already - you know, the skinflints that Mudd used to work for. The Colts, to their credit, did actually pony up their portion. So, you are going to go against the fiscally responsible teams and not even mention the teams that weren't responsible to the plan to begin with. Good call. Do you work for GM or something?

    The payment you cite is according to one source and probably an opt out source who wished to overstate the estimate to provide credibility to the decision to opt out.  As for the GM comment, I am not sure that the NFL has the baby boomer component that GM did, and there is no union in place for asst coaches to counter the owners as was the case with GM.  Not a great analogy, Root. 

    Who, by the way had not paid their fair share?  Your comment here is the first that I have heard of this.  Are you are saying there are teams that were not paying into the pension (before the change) as they were obligated to?  Please provide your source for this as I am interested.   

    And I am not against fiscally responsible teams as long as your not against individuals also being fiscally responsible.  As I said in my post, I was just having fun with this, and all is good at Colts camp.  By the way, there are sources who state emphatically that the only reason that Mudd and Moore retired was because of the pension issue. 

    And, yes, Manning whinnied and stamped his feet to ensure that he was taken care of. Part of that was ensuring Mudd and Moore would be back so he wouldn't ever feel uncomfortable. That was a conclusion based on the events (his media complaints that the current coaching staff was not communicating their plan to him.) and the fact that Manning is a selfish whiner. You can't say he isn't because his actions have always shown that he is Peyton first, team second. Did he actually force Mudd to unretire. No, that was just payback because you are a turd.

    Whinnied and stamped - (nice).  So Manning should not express his opinion?  Typical anti-manning response.  So if the pension issue could not have been resolved do you think Mudd and Moore would be back?  And to clarify, it wasn't the coaching staff that was not communicating their plan, it was the front office.  And the reason it was not communicated is because there was no resolution to the issue at the time.  I think that would be frustrating.  I think it is fine that you see Manning as a selfish whiner.  I see Belichick as a selfish cheater (on multiple levels).

    Out of curiousity, how did I try to "make you look bad" by disagreeing with your contention that the entire Colts team wasn't afraid? A tad sensitive, aren't you

    Nah - just calling you out for being petty when you attempted to spin my opinion as a factual statement.  Apparently, you don't care for my confrontations. 

    Lastly, I am not apologetic that big words intimidate you. How I write is how I think and speak. It would be patronizing if I had to dumb things down just for you to feel more comfortable. However, if you actually can't understand them, then I will make sure to use smaller words.

    Big words don't intimidate me.  They define you as a snob.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    To all - I have no problem with those that believe the colts take a step back this year.  There is an effective enough arguement to make for it. 

    Call it preseason optimism, or whatever, I happen to see things differently. 

    1.  Moore and Mudd are back.  That means the coaching changes are Caldwell (who was groomed), DC - Coyer, and ST - (forgetting the name). 

    Just as Manning has his playoff flameout stigma, so too did Dungy (see Tampa).  It is entirely possible that this HC change (although subtle) could be the kick the colts need. 

    Finally, Tennessee is an interesting question.  Were they a one hit wonder?  Was Haynesworth THAT valuable to the overall defense? 

    The DC changes will be subtle as well but will add wrinkles where previously none really existed.  This, to me, is positive.  But the most positive change on this side of the ball is at the DT.  Size alone, and depth, will make the run D better. 

    The ST change has only one direction to go - up. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share