Flags for Colts!

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

    Re: Flags for Colts!


    You really can't believe you are taken seriously, can you?

    Just mind-bogglingly hilarious.

    You state something entirely incorrect, get shown that it is incorrect, redefine what you meant (a semantic argument) and then accuse the person who showed you how wrong you were of using semantics. 

    I know you have said that you are in your 40's, but your arguments and thought processes are like a pre-teens. It is just utterly preposterous to think that you, a purported adult, thinks you can actually convince anyone of your arguments. It is hilarious.

    Also, I told you exactly why the call in the Chargers game was bad. You refute it by saying only that it was a good call, but add no detail. Again, simply refuting something without anything to offer beyond the mere fact that you refuted it is not acceptable except by pre-teens.

    I find it extremely ironic that you are accusing me of using "debate club tactics" when you are the one using them. Which of course, is a HS debate club tactic. You use them poorly and quite incorrectly which makes them very easy to spot, but that is how it is with someone as easily overmatched as you.

    Later, Chuckles. I guess in your case if you can't make any argument, at least you can make them laugh their butts off with your ineptitude. For that, you have my applause.
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    All you need to know about my man underdogg(g) and his little buddy -- who seems to have mysteriously evaporated -- is that, despite all evidence pointing in one obvious direction, they won't come right out and say that the Colts should steamroll Green New Jersey tomorrow and, if they don't, it will have been a collossal (possibly misspelled) collapse.

    I'll admit to being faintly amused by all the "this upset is worse than that upset" talk. True enough, Colts fan can reasonably argue that the Pats falling short against Blue New Jersey in their pursuit of a perfect season can be argued as the biggest upset ever. But let us not forget -- as has been pointed out ad infinitum and conveniently ignored by our favorite Colts fan (and the guy who has taken to pulling his wagon) -- the Pats had forsaken cheap glory, plenty of which they had already reaped, in favor of the NFL version of the Holy Grail. Yes -- they failed, and it is easy now to point at that and say, "See -- that's what overreaching your grasp will get you."

    But some of us choose not to see it that way.

    Even Galahad, whose heart was pure, was only allowed a glimpse of the Grail.

    So . . .   when I see guys in here defending a team who sees immortality on the horizon and says, "Nah . . .   I have no use for that," I am dubious. The Colts may well win the Super Bowl in a couple weeks, and that will be a fine gift for their fans if it happens.

    But I'd be willing to bet you that, even if they do secure another championship, ten . . .  twenty . . .  however many years from now,  at least a few people will still be wondering why they didn't reach for the brass ring when it was well and truly within their grasp.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!


    They did not reach for the Brass Ring when it was within their grasp because they were playing something called CORNHOLE....
  4. This post has been removed.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    RESPONSE: As many commentators picked the Giants as are picking the Jets. Why? Because some commentators figure that they have nothing to lose by picking an underdog, and everything to gain, should the dog come through.   

    So now you are on this board telling everyone that you know that what the commentators said is not actually what they believed.  Ok.  Would you mind providing a link where these commentators actually said their picks were really NOT what they believed?  That way you won't have anyone questioning your VERACITY.  

    RESPONSE: The 2007 Pats failed miserably?? How...by losing in the last minute to a very good Giants' team by three points in the dying minutes...after being pearl-harbored by the media/Specter conspiracy on the eve of the big game? Want an example of "failing miserably"? The Colts getting crushed by the Patriots in 2003-2004...losing at home to the Steelers in 2005, and allowing themselves to lose to inferior Charger teams in 2007-2008, are examples of "failing miserably".  

    You keep bringing up the Spygate BS.  These are grown men with a task, they don't respond to this.  Besides, I thought the team used Spygate as bulletin board material to help push them to their 16-0 record and to prove to the world that they could win without video?  So why would it bother them before the Superbowl?  Is there actually some truth to taping of walkthroughs?  Is that why the team lost focus?  If not, your point makes no sense.  It never bothered them during the season.  Maybe the team just lacked heart (sound familiar)? 

    RESPONSE: Yes, we all know that "originality isn't your bag". Neither is veracity...LOL!!

    See above

    RESPONSE: What a joke!! Crushing teams on the road?? Who did they crush...the "powerful" Cincinnati Bengals?? LOL!! Are you calling a 3 point win in San Diego a "crushing"? If thats' so, I guess that it can be argued that the Chargers "crushed" your Colts in 2007, and 2008...LOL!!!

    Are you suggesting theJets run isn't similar?  The Chargers were the hottest team in the NFL on an 11 game win streak and the favorite to win the Superbowl.  The Jets traveled across the country and stuck it to them.  Ohhh, that's right, you are a pats fan so the Giants must have been great and pats fans hate the Jets so regardless of what they do you cannot show them respect.  Got it.   

    RESPONSE: I'm stating facts. You're espousing speculation.

    Sure I am speculating.  You have to do that when something hasn't happened yet.  It doesn't change my point.  Why don't you go on record and say the Jets will be worse next year?  And don't act like the commentators that you know who said one thing but believed something entirely different.  Be honest.  

    RESPONSE: From the point of view of a troll, yes. But, objective folks would see things differently.

    A troll?  You spend so much time attempting to disprove or discredit me, but then you throw it all away with the "troll" comment as if no one will notice.  Objectivity is the Vegas line which had the Giants as a significantly greater underdog on a neutral field than they have the Jets on the Colts field.  Conventional wisdom says that homefield advantage is worth 3 points.  That would make the Jets a 4 pt neutral field underdog to the colts while the Giants were at a minimum 12 pt neutral field underdogs.  Objective folks call that a significant difference.      
    RESPONSE: I agree that the Jets will not be able to run on the Colts. Why? Because Indy has a very underrated defense. It is by far the fastest "D" in the league. Though they rank something like 24th overall against the run, within the redzone, the Colts rank 6th. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, The Colts are #1 in scoring defense. Once the Jets are unable to run, and fall behind, they'll have to depend more on Mark Sanchez. Then, the "reign of turnovers", along with the obligatory favorable flags, will begin.

         I also agree that the Chargers did a good job of stopping the Jets running game. They lost because of dumb penalties, and, in my view, their under-use of RB Darren Sproles. Sproles only had 10 touches on offense, yet averaged over 9 yards per touch.  

         But, what does that have to do with Peyton's tepid performance in last years' playoff loss in San Diego? The Colts' offense lost that game...not their defense. Why is it that you and the media are so reluctant to criticize ol' horseface?

    Why, now, are you listening to the commentators who (as you say) say one thing but believe something entirely different, because about the only thing they are saying about the colts this week is that the D has speed.  You can't use these commentators one time and then trash them when you don't agree or want to make up something different. 

    As for the Chargers doing a good job of stopping the Jets running game, I disagree.  Giving up a 53 yard TD run is not good run D.  And no, you can't take that out of the equation to make your point just as you can't take Manning's TD pass against the Chargers out of the equation.  That's called manipulation of facts. (real facts are different than your facts.  your facts are actually called opinion) When you manipulate real facts in order to prove or support your point, you've failed.  I would normally say it also damages your credibility, but you did that long ago.  In my opinion (see the difference there), the reason the colts lost has less to do with Manning and substantially more to do with the Defense giving up 170 yards on the ground and Scifres putting 5 punts at the 10, 9, 5, 3, & 1 yard lines. 

         I'm sorry if the truth is offensive to you, Dogg(g). But, theres' a reason why the Colts have "failed miserably" in the play-offs over the years. Your boys have lacked the heart to get it done. They were very, very lucky in 2006, when Peyton won his sole SB. They were gift-wrapped a ticket to the SB by the referees, when they edged the Patriots (Oh...I'm sorry. The Colts beat the Pats by more than three points...so that was a "crushing"...LOL!). Then, they were lucky again, as they drew an overmatched QB named Rex Grossman (never was a player more aptly named), in the SB.

         It pains me to say that, once again, the Colts are lucking out. They've drawn a seven loss team, led by a rookie QB, in the AFC title game. What an easy ride to a SB!!       

    The truth doesn't offend me.  You, attempting to pass off opinion as truth (as is your m.o.) is what is offensive.  Nothing makes me happier than to read your squirming posts about the Colts being gifted wins.  It demonstrates that the success of a team you hate grinds at your very soul.  If you were a more honest person, I'd sympathize with you. 

    But I don't.

  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    +4, Tex.

    Which I guess means you crushed him. 
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTS. Show BostonTS's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    "While the Jets may be the underdog, they are not as big an underdog as the giants were to the pats.  No one picked the giants to win, but that is not the case with the jets."

    I saw many commentators pick the Giants, and I myself was worried about that matchup for the Pats. This mythology that the Giants win was a huge upset is just that. Folks love the idea of the underdog, but fact of the matter is that if you know and love football, you know that some teams match up well against others. I can tell you that towards the end of that great regular season game where the Giants almost ruined the Pats perfect season, I remember telling my friend, "we don't want to see those guys in the playoffs." That was based on the notion that Plaxico could whip our small cornerbacks (he did), that Eli was playing well and loose in the clutch (which he was that year), and that their defensive line was able to bring pressure without extra blitzers. The Giants flat out matched up well with the Pats that year, and a number of analysts picked the Giants to win. The "upset factor" was increased by the fact that the Pats were undefeated going into the Super Bowl. Just like the Colts would be dealing with that now if they had decided to go for perfection. 

    As for the Jets, they do match up pretty well with the Colts. I would see it as a bigger upset than the Giants, however, only because Sanchez is not playing as well as Eli Manning was playing that season for the Giants. Having a limited quarterback means that you can only win games from a position of strength. Also, the Colts excellent pass rush should allow to put a lot of heat on Sanchez, especially if the Colts can take an early lead. 

    Having said that, if the Jets win, I won't be running around crowing about what a huge upset it was. I would see it as a minor upset, but not some huge choke job on the Colts part. The Colts mistake was not putting the Jets out of their misery when they had the chance. 

    Finally, I am careful about proclaiming upsets because I've come to appreciate that especially in a "one and done" playoff like the NFL, it is much harder to win as the "overdog". The underdog can play with nothing to lose. That is a major reason why we see so many unexpected outcomes in one and done tournaments. The Colts have the burden of being the "overdog" and that makes it tougher for them. Having said that, the Colts really need another Super Bowl ring to validate their credentials as a great franchise. We'll see if they can do it. The Jets are not going to be a cakewalk. 

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hoochiemgg. Show hoochiemgg's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    Your debate has been a good read. I myself can't stand either team so I was hoping that they could both lose and take Favre with them. I will say though that I get the scary feeling that we could be in the midst of a great NFL story here. I mean the Jets started so well, then they sucked, then Ryan cried like a baby and now they're on the brink of going to the big game. Also, they wouldn't be here at all if the Colts had any balls and went after the perfect season. Now the team they let onto the dance floor might bump them off in their own building. That's a bit of sweet justice if you ask me. Now if the Jets win, they play from out of a Dolphin locker room. Yes, the same Dolphins that beat the Jets twice but yet failed to make the playoffs. Add to this the whole Favre thing and it seems like this could be a season for the ages. All that said....Go Saints!!!
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    Did I just read in all that Underroos drivel where he thinks that the "Spread" is actually the difference that the Vagas Odds makers expect the game to end with?  REALLY?

    Here I thought that "Spread" as it was called was a number that the Odds,akers created (Based on hype) which would force the most bets to come down (as equally as possible) on either side so as to ensure that they would make the
    MOST money in the deal when they got their cut.
    That is why the "SPREAD" changes as a game gets closer to occurring... because if more money is bet on TEAM "A" then they give team "B" a bigger spread which will make more people take the points, and evens out the losses somewhat which actually maximizes the HOUSE's winning entirely.

    That is okay- Mr Underoos believes that the Odds-makers actually know what the final score difference will be and are tempting us all to be for or against that prognostication.....    WHATEVER....

    UNDEROOS is just here to Bait you guys into talking with him, and then switch his logic midstream so that he can feel good about himself because someone will speak with him.

    No one in Indiana will speak to the fool anymore.... even his right hand refuses to acknowledge him....  think about it.
  11. This post has been removed.

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    Posts: 1

    congrats on your first post
  13. This post has been removed.

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    Wow, Underroos just admitted that his team is bribing the league and officials..... 

    Nice to see that he finally decided to have a little integrity.
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    So, new ud, the Pats fans now cheat?

    I realize you aren't ud, but your responses are funnier.
  16. This post has been removed.

  17. This post has been removed.

  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Flags for Colts!


    Is that a serious note about the AP and the colts having "revenge" in mind? 

    Hilarious. The best revenge would have been to have kept your starters in and not give them the game.
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from N464Mex-N460A. Show N464Mex-N460A's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    I cant believe they didnt give them a flag for hitting sanchez
  21. This post has been removed.

  22. This post has been removed.

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    Enoch, Can you put the rules for a false start and illegal procedure on here?

    I though that the rule stated that once "SET" the linement could not move... but I am sure that I am wrong about it- I just would like to see the verbiage.
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    I'm a little disappointed in the obligatory "Colts get all the calls" thread this week.  Here's the justification for the non-call for roughing the passer: the refs missed the call.  Not surprising since there'd be no reason for a ref to be watching the QB after he'd handed off.  That's the difference between the face-mask call being made against the Jets and the roughing the passer against the Colts being missed.  A face mask will usually be called because it's at the point of tackle where a ref is always looking.  Thems the breaks, fellas.  Well called game outside that blatant missed roughing the passer...
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Flags for Colts!

    A new underdog has infiltrated the board.  Where's Leon.  

    Sam, what was the non-call?