Colts perspective

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

    LOL. And underdogg is crowned king of the sour grapes club.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    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.

    I said previous year's totals. Not sure how you mistook this for current. You see, they know the previous year's figure. They knew the price was going to more than double that figure. What about this don't you get.      
    --------------------------------------------

    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.  

    He filed his retirement papers in May so he could not have retired in February.

    I do not know what may have changed regarding funding from the time Mudd started looking into taking the lump sum (which was before the pension plan changed) until his retirement. Neither do you. Considering you don't even know when he retired, I find it hard to accept your version of events that you aren't aware of.

    --

    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.  

    He didn't work for the Pats and their funding or lack thereof would not bear on his retirement. His pension rests on the funding of the teams he worked for. What about this is difficult? Do you get your pension plan funded by a company you don't work for?  

    For the record, those teams are San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Cleveland and Kansas City. If they opt out ( I am not sure of their status) then Mudd might REPEAT MIGHT not have been able to take a lump sum, but as King points out it would have been unlikely that it would have happened.

    -----

    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.  

    Sure. Maybe when you get some facts right, that will sound believable.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    Pats09 - Not suggesting that there weren't any injuries, just that there were not significant injuries. 
    Posted by underdogg


    So your saying Colvins injury was not significant? You don't know much about the Pats pass rush woes do you?

    HINT - we just signed Derrick Burgess
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    Enoch Root - I am not worried and please don't cry for me.  I was just responding to your whining to MVPKilla.  

    You challenged and failed and were not willing to explicitly admit it.  Talk about weak character.

    Better run, those grade school girls just came looking for you, and they said they were going to kick your ayss.  LOL.  

    PS - I did get your implicit admission of failure in your last post.  Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmation appears to be working for you.  We're all pulling for you, buddy.  I didn't tell the school girls where you were.  Good Luck.
     
  4. 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 : So your saying Colvins injury was not significant? You don't know much about the Pats pass rush woes do you? HINT - we just signed Derrick Burgess
    Posted by PatsRfineIn09


    I am sorry I was not specific.  I was really talking about the regular season.  And I was suggesting teams having multiple injured starters missing the same game.  Say 6 or 7 starters missing.  It does stink when an injury occurs just prior to the playoffs.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    I like these long, drawn-out, "yes you did" -- 'No I didn't" threads where we get to read all the posts over and over again.

    Except I eventually forget which guy is which and what the original point was and, perhaps most disturbing, why I find it all so engrossing.


    Have any of you guys ever read "Hills Like White Elephants" by Ernest Hemingway?

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    Enoch walks warily down the street,
    With the brim pulled way down low
    Aint no sound but the sound of his feet,
    Machine guns ready to go
    Are you ready, are you ready for this
    Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
    Out of the doorway the bullets rip
    To the sound of the beat...

    Another one bites the dust.

    -----------------------------------------------
    Ive paid my dues -
    Time after time -
    Ive done my sentence
    But committed no crime -
    And bad mistakes
    Ive made a few
    Ive had my share of sand kicked in my face -
    But Ive come through

    all together now: 

    underdogg is the champion my friends
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective


                =




    That is just disturbing.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    No doubt, but their music was gold, prairie, gold.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    True that.

    I might remind you, however, that channeling Kenny Banya and Freddie Mercury at the same time could lead to indelicate complications.

    Okay, now sing "Fat Bottom Girls."
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    I think it would be mean to characterize root that way.  I am trying to keep this at least slightly immature.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to 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. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Hey I thought they played real well against the Jags last year.  I was at the game, and enjoyed the heck out of Peyton coming over to the sidelines (not once but twice) and Stoping his right foot on the ground while shoving down his right fist toward the ground.  It seemed that he was very unhappy- and I laughed my backside off at how a grown man can pout and throw a temper tantrum in front of 60,000 people......  No kidding it was the highlight of a bad week.  He got mad at Harrison for doing that little timed fly down the side and Pey Pey threw it a good 10 yrds past his because he was so happy to see him open that he got "Happy feet" when the nearest defender wasn't within 5 yrds of Pey Pey.... LOL

    My wife was with me ( A born & Bred Hoosier) and we sat in some pretty darn good seats.  I "Accidentally" wore my Patriots shirt and hat (Even though the Jags were there).  My wife who really is no great big football fan but likes the game said "I am embarrassed that a grown man could act that way".   OOPS- I told her that he is still just a youngin, maybe he will mature by the time he is 40 or 50.  LOL 

    POUTIN Manning is really a good player, but I just hate QB's qho hang their O-line out to be beaten by the press, or who claim their RB should have done better (right after they have a 50% passing day).

    All that being said underdogg- I agree that you guys should have less injuries and therefore be more competitive the entire year... not have a real bad beginning. 

    I do wonder though - How a post extolling the greatness of the COLTS belongs "on the front burner" in a Patriots forum.... 
     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    The Colts have been the Pats biggest rival for some time, which explains underdogg's presence as a regular on this forum. It also explains how such as thread as this happens to inhabit a Pats board. What it doesn't explain, is why people would bother to engage an obivious homer (which is a good thing) in a debate that, by it's very paremeters, is destined from its genesis to go nowhere.

    "The Colts s*ck.'

    "No. They don't."

    "Well, that's  . . .  like . . .  your opinion, man."

    "Ummm . . .  " 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    Enoch Root - I am not worried and please don't cry for me.  I was just responding to your whining to MVPKilla.   You challenged and failed and were not willing to explicitly admit it.  Talk about weak character. Better run, those grade school girls just came looking for you, and they said they were going to kick your ayss.  LOL.   PS - I did get your implicit admission of failure in your last post.  Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmation appears to be working for you.  We're all pulling for you, buddy.  I didn't tell the school girls where you were.  Good Luck.
    Posted by underdogg

    <sigh>

    Oh, we have finally reached the part where you start proclaiming "victory" despite being disproved and despite this not being an issue of winning or losing.

    The multiple posts in a row attempting to crow demonstrate an extreme need to be acknowledged by a peer group. The thing you don't get is that you won't despite your best attempts make it into a peer group. Why? Because even you don't think you belong. 

    There are a couple of demonstrated patterns that lead to this.

    The funniest one is the repeated Kenny Banya quote. On another post someone gave you props when you used it so you repeat it above looking for more accolades. That isn't just kind of pathetic. It is approval seeking behavior and sycophantic. Great news if you want to be a mascot.

    The next hilarious attempt is the use of "we" when it is only you. You have done this twice now. I pointed out the earlier attempt when you referenced an imaginary group that somehow thought the same as you (funny how that works) and now you use it again above to give the appearance that you are accepted and people are behind you. This driving need to be accepted by an imaginary peer group is as demonstrably funny as it is sad.

    I have a deal for you - I will cry for you when I stop laughing at you.


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

    Re: Colts perspective

    Root - you're too little too late my friend.  You've resorted exclusively to ad hominems which is pathetic for a man of such self-loving.      

    As for repeats - yes I did.  It was appropriate and fresh.  Anymore beyond two (like your past far too frequent use of tautological and sophist) is overkill. 

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    In Response to Re: Colts perspective:
    Root - you're too little too late my friend.  You've resorted exclusively to ad hominems which is pathetic for a man of such self-loving.       As for repeats - yes I did.  It was appropriate and fresh.  Anymore beyond two (like your past far too frequent use of tautological and sophist) is overkill. 
    Posted by underdogg


    Ad hominem? No. I was actually waiting for your traditional crowing post so I could give my summation. It is your sign that you've given up. It is your version of a teenager's "Whateverrrr" response. You do it rather often.

    Nice defense of the multiple re-use of a Banya quote. I am at a loss as to how a quote about 15 years old is considered "fresh". What is next on your "fresh" list - "Where's the beef?" or even "Thattsa one spicy-a meatball!". Maybe you are sitting around in parachute pants and a Member's Only jacket while responding. Who knows.

    Now, I wonder what your defense is for using "we" when it is just you. Funny that you avoided that one.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    ER
    I know we disagree on most everything. I must say I think UD is a twit as well. Always boasting how great his points are and such. I got him a shirt.

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

    Re: Colts perspective

    When they put something on television that's funnier than Seinfeld, that is when Kenny Banya will cease to be "fresh."
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Colts perspective

    These diatribes are much better when you ignore UD!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share