Colts perspective

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    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

    You are well known for making things up, using hyperbole and you even admit in your previous post that you "say what is necessary to back up your point". And frankly, what is challenging to you is not for me. Aside from that, my comments could never be taken as disingeniuous. 

    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 


    Nope. Not a stretch or an assumption. The information came from Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Assc. Unfortunately, they didn't put it boldly into the headline so you may actually have to read the article.

    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

    Well, the story, the same story linked to above, indicates "League owners" (which the last I checked is plural so more than one) suggest that the contribution has more than doubled. One put it into real numbers and 90 MM is more than double 40 MM.

    The interesting thing here is you may have found the same article. If you did, then you totally missed the fact that Kennan said that Mudd was exploring the lump sum options before the pension change. If that is true, strike a blow against your disingenuousness. 

    And, my mentioning GM was regarding fiscal irresponsibility, not their pension problems. As it followed my statement about fiscal responsibility, I thought it was clear contextually. I guess this is one of those times where we agreed I'd make it easier for you to understand.

    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.    

    If you are so interested, then do some research. I did mine and that is the difference between us. Find out the teams that Mudd used to coach for and see which teams have not (or at the time had not) fully paid. Stop being so lazy. And stop thinking stampedeblue presents unbiased reports.

    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.  

    I am not. I think what Mudd did was actually pretty smart considering the circumstances. But, I didn't start the muckraking now, did I. To make it perfectly clear, you started it by blaming the Patriots for Mudd having to retire. As to your "sources", are they by any chance Colts personnel? People call that "spin". As noted above, Mudd was already looking at ways he could take the lump sum. 

    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).

    No, Manning should not have taken this to the press. He is the leader of the team and should address such issues in house. Taking it outside gained nothing except to make him look like a whiner. Did the front office tell Manning the issue did not have clarity? If they did, then why did he take it to the press? If they didn't, again why did he take it to the press? If the answer is solely to express his frustration towards the front office about a situation that they had no control over, then even you can agree that it is pretty selfish and very anti-team.

    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. 

    Huh? I have no opinion on your so-called "confrontations", but puff your chest out if you feel the need. It makes you look less, well, no, it just makes you look like a guy who feels so inadequate that he needs to puff his chest out.

    Big words don't intimidate me.  They define you as a snob.  

    LOL, but they don't intimidate you? Why then is the use of a perfectly good and exact word "snobbish"? You don't seem to understand that your characterization of more accurate wording makes you appear intimidated. Why don't you just write, "So you think you're better than me!" and get it over with.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Underdogg you look petty and stupid when you let other poster bring you down to a bad level. Calling Belichick selfish is one of teh dumbest things you have ever seen. In this new era of football it was belichick the reinvented the idea of team football. He is all about the TEAM over a single player or person. No person is bigger then the team. After 2001 the NFL shifted and more teams started to copy what Bill did with the idea of a team. At ever super bowl now the teams are anounced as a team instead of the old way were they would glorify the drama queen super stars like Mike Irving. And who started that trend? the Pats because Bill is not selfish and he has tought his team to not be selfish. I realize that Enoch is draging you into this fight but calling Bill selfish is just no correct and it makes you look bad. You are smart enoguh to realize he is not selfish. you want to call him a cheater go right ahead, be like every other troll that comes on here but to call him selfish is just way off base.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    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

    You are well known for making things up, using hyperbole and you even admit in your previous post that you "say what is necessary to back up your point". And frankly, what is challenging to you is not for me. Aside from that, my comments could never be taken as disingeniuous. 

    Well known, huh?  Infamous?  There is nothing negative about saying what is necessary to back up a point, unless of course, what is said is false.  Never disingenuous - LOL - you can't even get out this post without being disingenuous.  By the way, I know you are a part of the spelling police.  You may want to use spell check if you want to keep your badge.   



    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 


    Nope. Not a stretch or an assumption. The information came from Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Assc. Unfortunately, they didn't put it boldly into the headline so you may actually have to read the article.

    I stand corrected. 



    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

    Well, the story, the same story linked to above, indicates "League owners" (which the last I checked is plural so more than one) suggest that the contribution has more than doubled. One put it into real numbers and 90 MM is more than double 40 MM.  The interesting thing here is you may have found the same article. If you did, then you totally missed the fact that Kennan said that Mudd was exploring the lump sum options before the pension change. If that is true, strike a blow against your disingenuousness. And, my mentioning GM was regarding fiscal irresponsibility, not their pension problems. As it followed my statement about fiscal responsibility, I thought it was clear contextually. I guess this is one of those times where we agreed I'd make it easier for you to understand.

    My point stands.  The fact is, we will probably never know the real truth because I am not sure ownership wants this fully disclosed.  I was off base on my GM comment. 


    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.    

    If you are so interested, then do some research. I did mine and that is the difference between us. Find out the teams that Mudd used to coach for and see which teams have not (or at the time had not) fully paid. Stop being so lazy. And stop thinking stampedeblue presents unbiased reports.

    So you have written something without the proof.  And yet you indict me.  No big deal.  As I see it, this may all be spin by those who chose to opt out.  Dumping a pension plan is never a popular thing, so there is no telling what comments are and are not accurate.  Without the data, we will never really know. 



    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.  

    I am not. I think what Mudd did was actually pretty smart considering the circumstances. But, I didn't start the muckraking now, did I. To make it perfectly clear, you started it by blaming the Patriots for Mudd having to retire. As to your "sources", are they by any chance Colts personnel? People call that "spin". As noted above, Mudd was already looking at ways he could take the lump sum. 

    The Patriots are partially to blame because they voted to opt out of the pension which is what created the Mudd issue in the first place.  All of these owners are still making money on these franchises.  The thought of them potentially having to bite the bullett for one year due to a short term economic decline should not be considered disastrous to them.  The fact that Kraft and Jones - two of the richest - chose this path smacks of greed more than fiscal responsibility.  As to the source - I could be disingenuous like you were above and tell you to do the research, but I won't.  

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-05-18-coaches-plan_N.htm

    This is the same man you referenced from your article, and your article identifies him as having the authority to speak for Howard Mudd.  



    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).

    No, Manning should not have taken this to the press. He is the leader of the team and should address such issues in house. Taking it outside gained nothing except to make him look like a whiner. Did the front office tell Manning the issue did not have clarity? If they did, then why did he take it to the press? If they didn't, again why did he take it to the press? If the answer is solely to express his frustration towards the front office about a situation that they had no control over, then even you can agree that it is pretty selfish and very anti-team.

    Says you?  And what moral authority do you possess to suggest what Manning should or should not have done?  This is some of the arrogance I am talking about.  You are wondering what was gained - Here it is - Manning (as you said) leads that team, more than simply on the field.  It behooves the organization to keep him apprised of things that directly affect him, like Howard Mudd and Tom Moore.  Without some information Manning does not know if he needs to step up his communication and relationship with the new OC and OL coaches. You tell me this, what was lost?  I am constantly amazed by the pats fans who have been brainwashed into believing that there is only benefit to having no voice at all.  


    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. 

    Huh? I have no opinion on your so-called "confrontations", but puff your chest out if you feel the need. It makes you look less, well, no, it just makes you look like a guy who feels so inadequate that he needs to puff his chest out.

    LOL - this coming from the big word guy on the board.  Who wants to puff their chest? 



    Big words don't intimidate me.  They define you as a snob.  

    LOL, but they don't intimidate you? Why then is the use of a perfectly good and exact word "snobbish"?

    Because a perfectly good synonym of more common and frequent usage is available.  But you know you are seen this way because others here have also snickered at your choice of words.   


    You don't seem to understand that your characterization of more accurate wording makes you appear intimidated. Why don't you just write, "So you think you're better than me!" and get it over with.

    As for appearances - you should know better than to judge based on appearances.  Finally, I don't think I am better than you.  In fact, quite the contrary, but I do sense an unseemly smugness from you and I don't care for it. 

    And for the record, I have answered you.  How come you frequently and conveniently leave out the things you can't prove in your replies?  Don't want to look bad?  That's the unseemly smugness.
     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]Underdogg you look petty and stupid when you let other poster bring you down to a bad level. Calling Belichick selfish is one of teh dumbest things you have ever seen. In this new era of football it was belichick the reinvented the idea of team football. He is all about the TEAM over a single player or person. No person is bigger then the team. After 2001 the NFL shifted and more teams started to copy what Bill did with the idea of a team. At ever super bowl now the teams are anounced as a team instead of the old way were they would glorify the drama queen super stars like Mike Irving. And who started that trend? the Pats because Bill is not selfish and he has tought his team to not be selfish. I realize that Enoch is draging you into this fight but calling Bill selfish is just no correct and it makes you look bad. You are smart enoguh to realize he is not selfish. you want to call him a cheater go right ahead, be like every other troll that comes on here but to call him selfish is just way off base.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    He cheated for his team's gain.  That is selfish to the rest of the league.  League integrity can easily be considered the one thing thing that allows the golden eggs to keep coming.  Without it, its pro wrestling.  Why do you think Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame - because he jeopardized the integrity of the game even if he never bet against the Reds.  Belichick claims there was little use to the taping which may or may not be true, but it smacked of undermining the integrity of the game.  That is selfish. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Misinterpreting the rules is a human mistake.

    It has nothing to do with integrity.
    Cool
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    So can you tell me exactly which NFL front office member ever said what Bill did was cheating? Cause from what I remember Goodel said that what he did was not cheated, it is not against the rules to film signals its against the rules to do it from where Bill was doing it. So he didnt cheat. I hate to take my anger out on you but you f8cking people need to learn hown to read! Or did you just ignore the commish when he said this? Everyone wants to call it cheating but the guy who has the right to name it cheating said he didnt cheat. He s crewed up the rules he didnt cheat. And he is the most unselfish coach in the game today so go         s crew.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Goodell

    "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots.

    One of the definitions of cheat is: "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game". 

    Goodell was doing the Belichick, the Patriots, and the league a favor by not using the word cheat, but the words he did use made what he meant very clear. 

    I am sorry that this bothers you, but its pretty plain.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Goodel later directly said that we did not cheat. He used those words did not cheat so again go s crew.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Roger Goodell does not live inside Bill Belichick's head.

    If Belichick says he was unclear on the specifics of the rule, who are you or I or Roger to call him a liar?

    I accept Belichick's explanation and see the whole thing for what it was, much ado about nothing.

    Now that we have that very fresh topic out of the way . . .

    Have you guys heard about this "round earth" theory?

    Intriguing.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    No but I have heard about teh zombie theory have you?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]Underdogg you look petty and stupid when you let other poster bring you down to a bad level. Calling Belichick selfish is one of teh dumbest things you have ever seen. In this new era of football it was belichick the reinvented the idea of team football. He is all about the TEAM over a single player or person. No person is bigger then the team. After 2001 the NFL shifted and more teams started to copy what Bill did with the idea of a team. At ever super bowl now the teams are anounced as a team instead of the old way were they would glorify the drama queen super stars like Mike Irving. And who started that trend? the Pats because Bill is not selfish and he has tought his team to not be selfish. I realize that Enoch is draging you into this fight but calling Bill selfish is just no correct and it makes you look bad. You are smart enoguh to realize he is not selfish. you want to call him a cheater go right ahead, be like every other troll that comes on here but to call him selfish is just way off base.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    MVP,

    Cut the crvp and read the threads. I am responding to his ad hominem attacks on the Pats, not the other way around. He started at this level; I didn't drag him to it. Thanks for your support.

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    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

    You are well known for making things up, using hyperbole and you even admit in your previous post that you "say what is necessary to back up your point". And frankly, what is challenging to you is not for me. Aside from that, my comments could never be taken as disingeniuous. 

    Well known, huh?  Infamous?  There is nothing negative about saying what is necessary to back up a point, unless of course, what is said is false.  Never disingenuous - LOL - you can't even get out this post without being disingenuous.  By the way, I know you are a part of the spelling police.  You may want to use spell check if you want to keep your badge.    

    Ah, now you are changing your tune. Now you are including "unless it is false". You are very well known for omitting facts that don't fit your argument. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrate often.

    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 


    Nope. Not a stretch or an assumption. The information came from Larry Kennan, executive director of the NFL Coaches Assc. Unfortunately, they didn't put it boldly into the headline so you may actually have to read the article.

    I stand corrected.  



    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

    Well, the story, the same story linked to above, indicates "League owners" (which the last I checked is plural so more than one) suggest that the contribution has more than doubled. One put it into real numbers and 90 MM is more than double 40 MM.  The interesting thing here is you may have found the same article. If you did, then you totally missed the fact that Kennan said that Mudd was exploring the lump sum options before the pension change. If that is true, strike a blow against your disingenuousness. And, my mentioning GM was regarding fiscal irresponsibility, not their pension problems. As it followed my statement about fiscal responsibility, I thought it was clear contextually. I guess this is one of those times where we agreed I'd make it easier for you to understand.

    My point stands.  The fact is, we will probably never know the real truth because I am not sure ownership wants this fully disclosed.  I was off base on my GM comment.  

    Do you think the one speaking just made up those numbers? Of course he didn't so we do know.

    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.    

    If you are so interested, then do some research. I did mine and that is the difference between us. Find out the teams that Mudd used to coach for and see which teams have not (or at the time had not) fully paid. Stop being so lazy. And stop thinking stampedeblue presents unbiased reports.

    So you have written something without the proof.  And yet you indict me.  No big deal.  As I see it, this may all be spin by those who chose to opt out.  Dumping a pension plan is never a popular thing, so there is no telling what comments are and are not accurate.  Without the data, we will never really know.  

    Wrong conclusion. I read several articles when researching this issue. I do have proof. I just told you to find it yourself and do some research as you are "very interested" in it. The fact is that the reason the lump sum payment option was unsettled was because several teams, some of which Mudd coached for, have not input... aww, heck, you lazy bvstvrd, here is the link. It is from a PK article in SI. Not too difficult to find if you just actually searched for it. 

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/17/nfl/index.html

    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.  

    I am not. I think what Mudd did was actually pretty smart considering the circumstances. But, I didn't start the muckraking now, did I. To make it perfectly clear, you started it by blaming the Patriots for Mudd having to retire. As to your "sources", are they by any chance Colts personnel? People call that "spin". As noted above, Mudd was already looking at ways he could take the lump sum. 

    The Patriots are partially to blame because they voted to opt out of the pension which is what created the Mudd issue in the first place.  All of these owners are still making money on these franchises.  The thought of them potentially having to bite the bullett for one year due to a short term economic decline should not be considered disastrous to them.  The fact that Kraft and Jones - two of the richest - chose this path smacks of greed more than fiscal responsibility.  As to the source - I could be disingenuous like you were above and tell you to do the research, but I won't.  

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-05-18-coaches-plan_N.htm

    This is the same man you referenced from your article, and your article identifies him as having the authority to speak for Howard Mudd.  

    1. That isn't what disingenuous means. I know it is new to you, but strive to use it correctly.
    2. In the PK article, none other than Polian himself says that the issue is  1% related to the changes in the pension plan. Go figure. Maybe neither can speak for Mudd. I would expect Polian to probably be closer to him, but you might not speak about benefits with the Pres and talk more freely with the Exec Dir of your coaches assoc. So toss this one up.
    3. There is no information in the article cited about the money being made by the franchises, the potential length of the economic downturn or owners' greed. That should be noted is all your opinion. 
    4. Now the Patriots are only "partly to blame" where the statement you made earlier pretty much laid all blame at Kraft's feet. I accept your apology.

    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).

    No, Manning should not have taken this to the press. He is the leader of the team and should address such issues in house. Taking it outside gained nothing except to make him look like a whiner. Did the front office tell Manning the issue did not have clarity? If they did, then why did he take it to the press? If they didn't, again why did he take it to the press? If the answer is solely to express his frustration towards the front office about a situation that they had no control over, then even you can agree that it is pretty selfish and very anti-team.

    Says you?  And what moral authority do you possess to suggest what Manning should or should not have done?  This is some of the arrogance I am talking about.  You are wondering what was gained - Here it is - Manning (as you said) leads that team, more than simply on the field.  It behooves the organization to keep him apprised of things that directly affect him, like Howard Mudd and Tom Moore.  Without some information Manning does not know if he needs to step up his communication and relationship with the new OC and OL coaches. You tell me this, what was lost?  I am constantly amazed by the pats fans who have been brainwashed into believing that there is only benefit to having no voice at all.  

    I did not say it was a moral issue. I am not sure why you think it is. Aside from that, Manning could have handled this in house without going to the press. He didn't. If the organization didn't apprise him, he has a responsibility to ask rather than go to outside. His complaining to the media about it made it look like a cheap power play on his part. An unselfish leader would have kept it inside. that is the same point I made before, by the way.

    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. 

    Huh? I have no opinion on your so-called "confrontations", but puff your chest out if you feel the need. It makes you look less, well, no, it just makes you look like a guy who feels so inadequate that he needs to puff his chest out.

    LOL - this coming from the big word guy on the board.  Who wants to puff their chest?  

    This is how I think and speak on a daily basis. To put it more bluntly, it is who I am and I am very comfortable with myself. It really seems to be an issue that you have. 

    Big words don't intimidate me.  They define you as a snob.  

    LOL, but they don't intimidate you? Why then is the use of a perfectly good and exact word "snobbish"? 

    Because a perfectly good synonym of more common and frequent usage is available.  But you know you are seen this way because others here have also snickered at your choice of words.    

    Ah, there we go, looking to the unspoken for assistance in validating your point of view. Never an effective tactic once we are past grade school and it really says far more about the weakness of your character than it ever could of me.

    You don't seem to understand that your characterization of more accurate wording makes you appear intimidated. Why don't you just write, "So you think you're better than me!" and get it over with.

    As for appearances - you should know better than to judge based on appearances.  Finally, I don't think I am better than you.  In fact, quite the contrary, but I do sense an unseemly smugness from you and I don't care for it. 

    And for the record, I have answered you.  How come you frequently and conveniently leave out the things you can't prove in your replies?  Don't want to look bad?  That's the unseemly smugness.
     

    You are confusing yourself. There was no judgment based on your appearance. Just an indication of what you present yourself to be. But, again, your attempt to over-analyze the statement says a lot about you.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

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

    Or Chargers!! :)


    Go Pats!!!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]Goodel later directly said that we did not cheat. He used those words did not cheat so again go s crew.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    I've never seen this.  By the way, I did not nor do I intend to make this a belichick bashing thread. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]Roger Goodell does not live inside Bill Belichick's head. If Belichick says he was unclear on the specifics of the rule, who are you or I or Roger to call him a liar? I accept Belichick's explanation and see the whole thing for what it was, much ado about nothing. Now that we have that very fresh topic out of the way . . . Have you guys heard about this "round earth" theory? Intriguing.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    Ok.  I accept your perspective and respectfully disagree.  What's an earth?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Ah, now you are changing your tune. Now you are including "unless it is false". You are very well known for omitting facts that don't fit your argument. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrate often.

    I was not aware I was well known for anything.  Why do you have an issue with me elaborating on a statement?  It does not change my tune at all.  It may change what you previously perceived my comment to mean, but that is your problem.


    Do you think the one speaking just made up those numbers? Of course he didn't so we do know.

    I think when individuals are attempting to push forward an upopular cause they exaggerate projections to make their cause more tolerable.  It is my assumption that future projected liability was communicated as a range, since it was called a projection and the comments made providing specifics were at the highest end of the range. 



    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.    

    If you are so interested, then do some research. I did mine and that is the difference between us. Find out the teams that Mudd used to coach for and see which teams have not (or at the time had not) fully paid. Stop being so lazy. And stop thinking stampedeblue presents unbiased reports.

    So you have written something without the proof.  And yet you indict me.  No big deal.  As I see it, this may all be spin by those who chose to opt out.  Dumping a pension plan is never a popular thing, so there is no telling what comments are and are not accurate.  Without the data, we will never really know.  

    Wrong conclusion. I read several articles when researching this issue. I do have proof. I just told you to find it yourself and do some research as you are "very interested" in it. The fact is that the reason the lump sum payment option was unsettled was because several teams, some of which Mudd coached for, have not input... aww, heck, you lazy bvstvrd, here is the link. It is from a PK article in SI. Not too difficult to find if you just actually searched for it. 

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/17/nfl/index.html

    I think you overestimate my interest.  My only interest is that you made a point and still have yet to validate it.  Here is your comment:  

    "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."  

    I asked if you knew that teams were not paying into the pensions before the change and who those teams were.

    Your cited article does not reference any team that had not ponied up their fair share to date and thus invalidates your source and you.  What the article appears to suggest is that if, after opting out, these teams fund less than 80% of the standard then there would be no guarantee that Mudd or Moore could take the lump sum in a future year.  Unless you have some other source you've yet to reveal, then I think you missed the boat on this one.  By the way, the skinflints you speak of actually include your beloved pats and validates my point that the pats did have something to do with Mudd's retirement issues.




    1. That isn't what disingenuous means. I know it is new to you, but strive to use it correctly.
    2. In the PK article, none other than Polian himself says that the issue is  1% related to the changes in the pension plan. Go figure. Maybe neither can speak for Mudd. I would expect Polian to probably be closer to him, but you might not speak about benefits with the Pres and talk more freely with the Exec Dir of your coaches assoc. So toss this one up.
    3. There is no information in the article cited about the money being made by the franchises, the potential length of the economic downturn or owners' greed. That should be noted is all your opinion. 
    4. Now the Patriots are only "partly to blame" where the statement you made earlier pretty much laid all blame at Kraft's feet. I accept your apology.

    re 1. Good job fixing your spelling.  You can keep your badge.  I will strive to be better.
    re 2. Why are you spinning now?  Your cited article specifically mentions that Kennan was authorized to speak on behalf of Mudd.  So, why would you attempt to suggest otherwise.  Just admit you were wrong as I have and go on.  Or is your ego to big (lightbulb).  Even PK does not fully believe Polian's comment.  Its amusing to me that you take people at their words when it suits you but interpret such words when they do not.  And you wish to claim that I engage in intellectual dishonesty.  Appalling.
    re 3.  You are correct.  But I don't mind stating my opinion.  That's kind of what I see message boards as.  
    re 4.  No apology given, but feel free to fantasize if it makes your bathroom sessions more satisfying.  why are you splitting hairs here about the amount of blame?  Is it because your arguement is falling apart?  What I actually said was this:

    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. 

    I don't characterize this statement as "pretty much laid all blame at kraft's feet".  Anyway, as I said, I was just having fun with this.  If Kraft wants to be the skinflint you describe, that is his preogative. 



    No, Manning should not have taken this to the press. He is the leader of the team and should address such issues in house. Taking it outside gained nothing except to make him look like a whiner. Did the front office tell Manning the issue did not have clarity? If they did, then why did he take it to the press? If they didn't, again why did he take it to the press? If the answer is solely to express his frustration towards the front office about a situation that they had no control over, then even you can agree that it is pretty selfish and very anti-team.

    Says you?  And what moral authority do you possess to suggest what Manning should or should not have done?  This is some of the arrogance I am talking about.  You are wondering what was gained - Here it is - Manning (as you said) leads that team, more than simply on the field.  It behooves the organization to keep him apprised of things that directly affect him, like Howard Mudd and Tom Moore.  Without some information Manning does not know if he needs to step up his communication and relationship with the new OC and OL coaches. You tell me this, what was lost?  I am constantly amazed by the pats fans who have been brainwashed into believing that there is only benefit to having no voice at all.  

    I did not say it was a moral issue. I am not sure why you think it is. Aside from that, Manning could have handled this in house without going to the press. He didn't. If the organization didn't apprise him, he has a responsibility to ask rather than go to outside. His complaining to the media about it made it look like a cheap power play on his part. An unselfish leader would have kept it inside. that is the same point I made before, by the way.

    Did Manning call a press conference for this?  No.  That is what I call going to the press.  The press asked him a question about what he knew about the situation and he answered it honestly.  Why you have an issue with an honest answer is beyond me.  Given that it was an off the cuff answer, I completely disagree with your assessment that this was "a power play" or selfish.



    This is how I think and speak on a daily basis. To put it more bluntly, it is who I am and I am very comfortable with myself. It really seems to be an issue that you have. 

    I am happy for you. 


    Ah, there we go, looking to the unspoken for assistance in validating your point of view. Never an effective tactic once we are past grade school and it really says far more about the weakness of your character than it ever could of me.

    Nothing about the perfectly good and common and frequent available synonym?  Since my point of view is an opinion and not a statement of fact, others who agree with it usually do provide some validation of it.  It doesn't matter whether or not you agree.  



    You are confusing yourself. There was no judgment based on your appearance. Just an indication of what you present yourself to be. But, again, your attempt to over-analyze the statement says a lot about you.

    Sure there was.  You judged me based on how I appeared to you.  Still nothing about leaving out the things about which you are wrong? 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    My attacks - What were these? 

    1.  That you imagined I said that the pats would worse off than the colts or
    2.  That the pats as a component of the pension opt out group bear responsibility for Howard Mudd's retirement? 

    Forget all of the other bs - per your comment to Tas - this was the reason for you jumping into a conversation that had nothing to do with you and these were the comments you originally took issue with. 

    You failed with the first miserably and conveniently chose to eliminate it from the discussion, I assume, because you are too proud to admit fault.  

    With the second, after some begging, you cited your source for disagreeing with my statement (although it was primarily tongue in cheek) but it actually supported mine more than yours.  

    I am generally on this board to have fun.  I take the slings and arrows and dish some out too.  That you have a serious problem with me doing it is your issue.  I'd say the attacks are coming from you. 

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    Enoch you are right i didnt read teh whole thread so i should have not commented on it my bad bro no offense intended.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ush. Show ush's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Who do ya'll think will make the playoffs this year from the AFC?  I think NE, Indy, Baltimore & San Diego win their divisions and Pittsburgh & Jacksonville get the wild cards. It really doesn't matter that Dungy is leaving, it actually probably helps. Plus Manning is healthy this season from the first snap.

    PS. To the stupid Colt fan who said they're feeling confident about the Pats coming into Indy this year: Why because you barely beat the Matt Cassel led Pats last year and we now have a healthy Brady and a majorly upgraded Defense?  Ok idiot.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    I think NE, Indy, Baltimore & San Diego win their divisions and Pittsburgh & Jacksonville get the wild cards.

    I think the Ravens will have a hard time even making a WC this season. Not only did Ryan leave, but they lost quite a few guys from that defense. They are thin at WR, and with Flacco in his second year there is more tape of him for opposing DCs to study. Unless the Steelers (who haven't really lost anyone of great importance) really tank it, I expect them to make a strong push at a repeat. NE with a healthy Brady and a rejuvenated defense is their biggest obstacle, IMO. I see these two teams going at it for the AFC this season (barring major injury scenarios). I do think the Colts should be considered favorites in the South, as the Titans will miss Haynesworth, and Collins isn't getting any younger. The West is a mystery to me, as it will take a huge turnaround for the SD defense to be dominant like they were in 06. Merriman has a lot on his plate, we'll see how he reacts. There is also Tomlinson's health to consider, at 30 he could be on the downslide. They are lucky that theirs is a weak division. The Chiefs are probably two years away from making a move (if they're going to), and we don't know how Orton will perform in Denver. For the Jags to contend for a WC they will need Garrard to regain his form from 07, and their O-line to stay healthy. Losing Fred Taylor might also hurt more than they think, too. I'm not buying into the Texans' hype, they have yet to prove they can keep Schaub healthy, and he to prove he can lead the team to the postseason. I'd say for the WC berths, there are a lot of teams who could step it up a notch, but we'll have to wait and see who actually does. And as always is the case, injuries could alter the landscape drastically in this regard.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Ush, 

    as a colt fan, I think you drop Jacksonville and put in either Tennessee or Houston. 

    Houston is a popular pick this year.  We'll see if it plays out. 

    Tennessee won 13 games last year beating a number of good teams like Indy, Balt, Pitt (may have been a year end sit down by Pitt), Minn.  I never count a Jeff Fisher team out, but I am not convinced that they can duplicate last year again. 

    The only other teams I would consider at this point would be Miami and (maybe) Buffalo.  I've heard some say that Miami may be a better team this year, but that their brutal schedule will keep them from the postseason.  As for Buffalo, I'll believe it when I see it.  

    As for the colts being confident against the pats, I don't think that was me, but I think the colts stand a good chance against the pats.  Reasons:
    1.  Playing in Indy
    2.  NE's offense played against an Indy D that avg'd 260# at 2 DT spots, was missing a starting backer and 2 starting corners, and still won despite NE rushing for 140 yds. 
    3.  This year, potential injuries aside their Oline will improve through healthy players and experience gained by 2 rookies who played significantly last year.  RB will improve both by health and addition, QB will be healthier, DT's will likely avg 290-300# with depth, LB's are healthy and have depth, DB unit may be one of the deepest and most talented in the NFL. 
    4.  Questions about coaches are resolved.  Actually we only lost the HC, DC, and ST coaches.  I have no worries about the transistion at HC.  This is an experienced successful team.  They know how to win regardless of coaches.  DC needed a change and will employ the same D with "wrinkles" that include blitzing.  ST has nowhere to go but up - although this could be our biggest area of concern with Vinateri just getting surgery. 

    I am happy to call it preseason optimism, because no one knows what will happen (and no one knows this better than pats fans), but where the pundits are counting out the colts, barring injury, I expect them to eat their words.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Ah, now you are changing your tune. Now you are including "unless it is false". You are very well known for omitting facts that don't fit your argument. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty that you demonstrate often.

    I was not aware I was well known for anything.  Why do you have an issue with me elaborating on a statement?  It does not change my tune at all.  It may change what you previously perceived my comment to mean, but that is your problem.

    Really? You weren't aware? Several posters have pointed this out to you.

    And, you did not elaborate, you qualified. And you qualified after you finally figured out what your original statement actually meant. You originally said that you would say anything to back up your point. You even re-iterated that. Then you changed it to include "unless it is false". So, if you felt the need to qualify, you clearly realized that your statement meant something else as it stood alone. You basically back-pedalled on your original comment. Nothing was misperceived on my end.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Do you think the one speaking just made up those numbers? Of course he didn't so we do know.

    I think when individuals are attempting to push forward an upopular cause they exaggerate projections to make their cause more tolerable.  It is my assumption that future projected liability was communicated as a range, since it was called a projection and the comments made providing specifics were at the highest end of the range.  

    Again, you are missing the point. Several owners indicated that the price would be more than twice as much as the previous season. One owner gave more specific figures that matched that . Do you think he inflated the previous years total? Why? It could be looked up. If you don't want to believe it, just say so. That doesn't mean "we will never know" because we were actually told by a source what it was. 

    --------------------------------------------

    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.    

    If you are so interested, then do some research. I did mine and that is the difference between us. Find out the teams that Mudd used to coach for and see which teams have not (or at the time had not) fully paid. Stop being so lazy. And stop thinking stampedeblue presents unbiased reports.

    So you have written something without the proof.  And yet you indict me.  No big deal.  As I see it, this may all be spin by those who chose to opt out.  Dumping a pension plan is never a popular thing, so there is no telling what comments are and are not accurate.  Without the data, we will never really know.  

    Wrong conclusion. I read several articles when researching this issue. I do have proof. I just told you to find it yourself and do some research as you are "very interested" in it. The fact is that the reason the lump sum payment option was unsettled was because several teams, some of which Mudd coached for, have not input... aww, heck, you lazy bvstvrd, here is the link. It is from a PK article in SI. Not too difficult to find if you just actually searched for it. 

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/17/nfl/index.html

    I think you overestimate my interest.  My only interest is that you made a point and still have yet to validate it.  Here is your comment:  

    "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."  

    I asked if you knew that teams were not paying into the pensions before the change and who those teams were. 

    Your cited article does not reference any team that had not ponied up their fair share to date and thus invalidates your source and you.  What the article appears to suggest is that if, after opting out, these teams fund less than 80% of the standard then there would be no guarantee that Mudd or Moore could take the lump sum in a future year.  Unless you have some other source you've yet to reveal, then I think you missed the boat on this one.  By the way, the skinflints you speak of actually include your beloved pats and validates my point that the pats did have something to do with Mudd's retirement issues.


    Actually, Kennan mentions that several teams are not fully funded in the previously mentioned ESPN article.  I did note that I had read several articles on this. If I put the wrong link up, I apologize, but, had you actually read through both, you would realize the information is there. I guess that expectation was too much.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    1. That isn't what disingenuous means. I know it is new to you, but strive to use it correctly.
    2. In the PK article, none other than Polian himself says that the issue is  1% related to the changes in the pension plan. Go figure. Maybe neither can speak for Mudd. I would expect Polian to probably be closer to him, but you might not speak about benefits with the Pres and talk more freely with the Exec Dir of your coaches assoc. So toss this one up.
    3. There is no information in the article cited about the money being made by the franchises, the potential length of the economic downturn or owners' greed. That should be noted is all your opinion. 
    4. Now the Patriots are only "partly to blame" where the statement you made earlier pretty much laid all blame at Kraft's feet. I accept your apology.

    re 1. Good job fixing your spelling.  You can keep your badge.  I will strive to be better.
    re 2. Why are you spinning now?  Your cited article specifically mentions that Kennan was authorized to speak on behalf of Mudd.  So, why would you attempt to suggest otherwise.  Just admit you were wrong as I have and go on.  Or is your ego to big (lightbulb).  Even PK does not fully believe Polian's comment.  Its amusing to me that you take people at their words when it suits you but interpret such words when they do not.  And you wish to claim that I engage in intellectual dishonesty.  Appalling.
    re 3.  You are correct.  But I don't mind stating my opinion.  That's kind of what I see message boards as.  
    re 4.  No apology given, but feel free to fantasize if it makes your bathroom sessions more satisfying.  why are you splitting hairs here about the amount of blame?  Is it because your arguement is falling apart?  What I actually said was this: 

    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.  

    I don't characterize this statement as "pretty much laid all blame at kraft's feet".  Anyway, as I said, I was just having fun with this.  If Kraft wants to be the skinflint you describe, that is his preogative.  

    1. Huh, it wasn't an issue about spelling (though you did misspell it earlier - something I did not point out - I did not misspell it as you now write. You used the word incorrectly. It did not fit into the context of the sentence.

    I am not really sure now if you are just trying to write things to make yourself appear more intelligent by accusing the other person of your errors or if you just don't realize them and think you are correct.

    2. There are two cited articles. One mentions Kennan can speak for Mudd (a point you brought up by the way) and the other has Polian and Kennan speaking for Mudd. As what they are saying is divergent, I was noting that. What is your problem?

    3. This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. You actually mention the article and then put your opinion in the middle of the paragraph as if it was part of the article. You need to break out your opinion from the rest. If it was an oversight, then my apologies, but I have seen you do it far too many times to automatically excuse it as oversight.

    4. Oh, please. Take some ownership. You know what your intent was. 

    ------------------------------------------------------

    No, Manning should not have taken this to the press. He is the leader of the team and should address such issues in house. Taking it outside gained nothing except to make him look like a whiner. Did the front office tell Manning the issue did not have clarity? If they did, then why did he take it to the press? If they didn't, again why did he take it to the press? If the answer is solely to express his frustration towards the front office about a situation that they had no control over, then even you can agree that it is pretty selfish and very anti-team.

    Says you?  And what moral authority do you possess to suggest what Manning should or should not have done?  This is some of the arrogance I am talking about.  You are wondering what was gained - Here it is - Manning (as you said) leads that team, more than simply on the field.  It behooves the organization to keep him apprised of things that directly affect him, like Howard Mudd and Tom Moore.  Without some information Manning does not know if he needs to step up his communication and relationship with the new OC and OL coaches. You tell me this, what was lost?  I am constantly amazed by the pats fans who have been brainwashed into believing that there is only benefit to having no voice at all.  

    I did not say it was a moral issue. I am not sure why you think it is. Aside from that, Manning could have handled this in house without going to the press. He didn't. If the organization didn't apprise him, he has a responsibility to ask rather than go to outside. His complaining to the media about it made it look like a cheap power play on his part. An unselfish leader would have kept it inside. that is the same point I made before, by the way.

    Did Manning call a press conference for this?  No.  That is what I call going to the press.  The press asked him a question about what he knew about the situation and he answered it honestly.  Why you have an issue with an honest answer is beyond me.  Given that it was an off the cuff answer, I completely disagree with your assessment that this was "a power play" or selfish. 

    Sorry, but that is just hilarious. Why does it matter if he called a press conference or not - he shouldn't have brought it up beyond the confines of the clubhouse. Cut and dried. You want to play semantics about "going to the press", fine. He spoke to the press about something he shouldn't have. Deal with it. It made him look selfish. Deal with it. He didn't call a press conference after the AFCCG where he complained that his O-line didn't block very well, but he said something there he shouldn't have. Deal with it.

    Go look up the story on stampedeblue and indyfootballreport. There are comments from Indy fans stating explicitly that he should have kept it in-house. 

    ------------------------------------

    This is how I think and speak on a daily basis. To put it more bluntly, it is who I am and I am very comfortable with myself. It really seems to be an issue that you have. 

    I am happy for you.  


    Ah, there we go, looking to the unspoken for assistance in validating your point of view. Never an effective tactic once we are past grade school and it really says far more about the weakness of your character than it ever could of me.

    Nothing about the perfectly good and common and frequent available synonym?  Since my point of view is an opinion and not a statement of fact, others who agree with it usually do provide some validation of it.  It doesn't matter whether or not you agree.   

    Oh man, you are just sad. Funny, but sad. When you write "I have seen others snicker at your choice of words" that is not an opinion. Maybe I am just assuming that you know more than you know. I see you removed your original comments. Figures.

    ----------------------------------

    You are confusing yourself. There was no judgment based on your appearance. Just an indication of what you present yourself to be. But, again, your attempt to over-analyze the statement says a lot about you.

    Sure there was.  You judged me based on how I appeared to you.  Still nothing about leaving out the things about which you are wrong? 

    No, you presented yourself in a particular manner. That is something you have control over. If you choose to present yourself as a schmvck, then so be it. You make it seem like I am judging you by your clothes or something. I am telling you how you present yourself based on the content of your writing. Your words. Your thoughts. Your attitude. How you present yourself. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]Enoch you are right i didnt read teh whole thread so i should have not commented on it my bad bro no offense intended.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    Not a problem. I think I am supposed to insert an Obama joke here, but I don't want to come off as anti-Obama. 

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    [QUOTE]My attacks - What were these?  1.  That you imagined I said that the pats would worse off than the colts or 2.  That the pats as a component of the pension opt out group bear responsibility for Howard Mudd's retirement?  Forget all of the other bs - per your comment to Tas - this was the reason for you jumping into a conversation that had nothing to do with you and these were the comments you originally took issue with.  You failed with the first miserably and conveniently chose to eliminate it from the discussion, I assume, because you are too proud to admit fault.   With the second, after some begging, you cited your source for disagreeing with my statement (although it was primarily tongue in cheek) but it actually supported mine more than yours.   I am generally on this board to have fun.  I take the slings and arrows and dish some out too.  That you have a serious problem with me doing it is your issue.  I'd say the attacks are coming from you.  Toodles.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Oh, poor you. You want to talk crvp and then back out of it. Grade school girls are made of sterner stuff.

    Don't worry though. It is all tongue in cheek.

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    I was not aware I was well known for anything.  Why do you have an issue with me elaborating on a statement?  It does not change my tune at all.  It may change what you previously perceived my comment to mean, but that is your problem.

    Really? You weren't aware? Several posters have pointed this out to you.

    And, you did not elaborate, you qualified. And you qualified after you finally figured out what your original statement actually meant. You originally said that you would say anything to back up your point. You even re-iterated that. Then you changed it to include "unless it is false". So, if you felt the need to qualify, you clearly realized that your statement meant something else as it stood alone. You basically back-pedalled on your original comment. Nothing was misperceived on my end.

    This is not important to me.  Carry on if it makes you feel better.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    Do you think the one speaking just made up those numbers? Of course he didn't so we do know.

    I think when individuals are attempting to push forward an upopular cause they exaggerate projections to make their cause more tolerable.  It is my assumption that future projected liability was communicated as a range, since it was called a projection and the comments made providing specifics were at the highest end of the range.  

    Again, you are missing the point. Several owners indicated that the price would be more than twice as much as the previous season. One owner gave more specific figures that matched that . Do you think he inflated the previous years total? Why? It could be looked up. If you don't want to believe it, just say so. That doesn't mean "we will never know" because we were actually told by a source what it was. 

    I am not missing my point, My point is crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with the current year totals (where did this come from?) only the future year projections.  Those several owners may very well be the ones that chose to opt out and in order to make them appear more sympathetic to the public for their very negative decision, the information they made public regarding future projected obligations may be at the highest level of an estimated range.  The figure was not going to be known, according to Kennan, until July.        
    --------------------------------------------

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/05/17/nfl/index.html

    I think you overestimate my interest.  My only interest is that you made a point and still have yet to validate it.  Here is your comment:  

    "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."  

    I asked if you knew that teams were not paying into the pensions before the change and who those teams were. 

    Your cited article does not reference any team that had not ponied up their fair share to date and thus invalidates your source and you.  What the article appears to suggest is that if, after opting out, these teams fund less than 80% of the standard then there would be no guarantee that Mudd or Moore could take the lump sum in a future year.  Unless you have some other source you've yet to reveal, then I think you missed the boat on this one.  By the way, the skinflints you speak of actually include your beloved pats and validates my point that the pats did have something to do with Mudd's retirement issues.


    Actually, Kennan mentions that several teams are not fully funded in the previously mentioned ESPN article.  I did note that I had read several articles on this. If I put the wrong link up, I apologize, but, had you actually read through both, you would realize the information is there. I guess that expectation was too much. 

    Really?  Because I reread that ESPN article and I have to say that I think you are mistaken.  Here is why - according to the article the pensions must be funded to 80% in order for a retiree to take the lump sum

    "So you take a guy like Howard Mudd, who is pretty diligent about everything, and he was already concerned about losing some money because the market index was going to change in July. Then you throw this at someone like that -- and he finds out that several teams have not fully funded their pension plans at an 80 percent level, the mark they need to hit for any employee to take a full lump sum payment. ...Well, Howard Mudd's not waiting around to see what happens with all these signals."

    If Howard Mudd's former employers had not previously fully funded their pensions (as you attempted to originally suggest) then per Kennen's comments, Mudd would not have been able to take his lump sum even at the time of his retirement in February, which he did.  It is the pension opt out - "then you throw THIS at someone like that" - that will allow skinflint (your word) opt outs like the pats to fund at a level of less than 80% and that would have put Mudd into the exact predicament (no lump sum withdraw) that he chose to avoid. 

    For someone that attempts to project such an air of intelligence, I think you really missed this.  Now if you happen to have some other information beyond your failed efforts then I will be willing to rescind my comments but until then the only idiot in this post is you. 

    More later. 


    -------------------------------------------------------
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share