Luck Looks Sensational Again

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

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again": Depending on one's preconceived feelings, the article may or may not have merit.
     
    RESPONSE: What a croc...LOL!!!

    His examples are opinions.
     
    RESPONSE: No. They are deductions that are based on facts.

    I don't know if brad wells is a colts fan. Based on his articles that I've read he more opinion maker searching for web hits than a fan.
     
    RESPONSE: More lies! Wells is a huge Indiana sports fan, and you know it: http://indiana.sbnation.com/authors/brad-wells  

    Further, it is widely known that he had an axe to grind with polian and used his keyboard to grind it at every opportunity ad nauseum and frequently quite childishly.
     
    RESPONSE: Let's see now...first you claimed that you don't know who Wells is...yet you say that "it is widely known that he had an axe to grind with Polian..." Obviously then, you do know who he is, and have read at least some of his articles.  
         Where's your proof that Wells merely has an axe to grind with Polian? Isn't that just your opinion? Most Colts fans had an axe to grind with Polian, dating back to the 2009 season, when Polian pulled the plug on Indy's shot at a perfect season. Heck,  Colts' owner Jim Irsay obviously had an axe to grind with Polian, considering that he gave Polian and his son the boot.  


    Given all of the above, his article is not a surprise. Some may agree with him. Some may not.
     
    RESPONSE: You have failed to answer my questions. Do you deny that the examples Wells listed have merit? Are you still denying that Wells is a die hard Colts fan? Don't you think that his deductions are logical? If not, why not? What explanations can you offer as to why the Colts chose not to pick up Kyle Orton after he was waived by Denver...chose to continue to play a completely ineffective Curtis Painter, when it was obvious to all that had eyes that he was terrible...and why did the Colts decide to stick with the obviously ineffective "Manikin", Jim Caldwell, for the entire 2011 season?  

    Finally, opinions can't be lies. You frequently confuse opinion and fact. Then again, like the writer you cite, you always come with an agenda.

    RESPONSE: BS. You asked for proof showing that the Colts tanked their season last year in order to get Luck. I have presented facts (not opinions), as presented in the article above, which were written by a huge Colts' fan, which demonstrate that Indy made a concerted effort to stay terrible, or tank. What proof do you have which show that the Colts did not tank their season, other than your lies, childish denials, and bogus opinions?
         Once again, you have demonstrated for all to see why you no credibility on this forum, and why no one should take you seriously.   

    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    Underdogg~

    TP's right...  In this day and age, In terms of how we're definably breaking down the "Opinion" vs "Fact" on the set scale-

    "His examples are opinions." ~UD
     
    "RESPONSE: No. They are deductions that are based on facts." TP~

    "Deductions based on facts," ARE Facts...and are 1 in the same as: "Accurate tallies based on solid evidence."

    I know, it's still somewhat confusing...but if it helps ya get a better grasp at coming to better terms with this sorta grey, murky standard- One does not need actual 2nd hand hand, and/or any already proven sources in any manner for that matter, In order to garner the label of:  "Fact."  'That help?

    ^ Also, I'm pretty sure there's a web-site somewhere now, where ya can money-order ideas INTO facts for $29.95 <+ S/H /> (btw, for a mere $59.95, you can get them to place it under it's subject realm inside the following year's edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica);

    Now, initially they was a pretty hard attempt, in order to broaden that whole "Opinion" definition...  Maybe you can remember the still sorta recent, new-age phrase, "If ya got an #ssh#le, then ya got an opinion."  It worked for awhile, even got their money's worth in that living euphemism by trying ta throw down with change-ups, curveballs ("Everyone w/ an #ssh#le has an opinion," "Opinions are like #ssh#les, everybody's got 'em," (etc)...STILL, any way people have tried to work it, defining any opinion even in THIS light, STILL makes it just a tad too restrictive in the end.  Just like any typical Saturday night porn star actress (sorry, "actress") date for Gronkowski...the #ssh#le portion of this body, requires & neccesitates nearly superhuman expansion properties.

    So in a quick line now, here on out, When ya think "Fact"...think "somewhere within the county of the neighborhood where 'fact' is residing,"...And when ya need to better define "Opinion"...going forward, and here on out, think, "Anything residing in The Universe, real or imagined."
      
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Eng - I am not interested in reopening wounds.  I'll simply say that Goodell said the pats did something against the rules in an attempt to gain an advantage.  Belichick said he'd been doing it since day one with the pats.  That means they'd been doing something against the rules since Belichick's first year with the pats to gain an advantage.  Whether or not they did is immaterial although I'd like to think Belichick is smart enough to know that if the process produces nothing then it should be scrapped.  Violating rules in that way taints success.  On the other hand, your comments about the colts intentionally tanking are simply opinion.  IMO your opinion is based on some flawed thinking.  You certainly are welcome to continue thinking as you wish, but I'd suggest logic would tell you something else.  That's said, the root of fandom is fanatic and fanatical thinking doesn't always lend itself to logic.  again - apples and oranges.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Link?

    Belichick said he'd been doing it since day one with the pats.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Link? Belichick said he'd been doing it since day one with the pats.
    Posted by Rocky[/QUOTE]
    I may have been wrong that Belichick admitted taping, but I thought he had.  Its not important since the tapes that were given to the NFL were from the 2000-2002 season.  Belichick's first season with the patriots was 2000, correct?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    Underdogg, listen clearly please-

    Taping WAS not illegal.  There were varying stipulations and pretty f'!ng ambiguous and contradictory criterion set in place WHEN a team was taping (covered booth, non-covered booth but on own sideline, any sideline but in a marked team uni at all times, only on own sideline and no team uni, etc.).

    It was always ambiguous and EVERY Coach on EVERY F'!NG team tinkered with this in 1 form and/or fashion or another.  EVERY one.  It was accepted as common practice, NEVER enforced, and never RE-stated and RE-emphasized into any sorta clear and lucid lay down of what or what was not allowed...It's the way it was. It is why even now ya see Coaches either hiding and/or quickly murmering their play calls into the field under breath...It's the reason why teams had anywhere from 2-even 5 different sets of real & fake hand signals and set names on any given matchup on any given Sunday.

    A few Coaches like Tony Dungy, were so far down on the insipid and amazingly unoriginal and uncreative scale, that after touching upon it's benefits (or not), they abandoned it REALLY early on due to it having zero advantage based on what I stated in the opposing side's alterations and the like, up above.  Solely from these dull yokels of miniscule consciousness, Does and did one here the now suddenly righteous & exacting morality of just HOW terribly wrong that this practice was.  A practice that EVERY-one tried, and many still deployed on their apparent behalf.

    A great many coaches did it THE WHOLE Span during this time period...AND during this span as the opposing side's team did even more game-in-game changes and alterings and were more exacting that eyes were looking over them in their sideline endeavors on any Sunday, they did it less and less and less.  THESE folks HAVE said, that the minor help they DID receive became meaningless based on the effort and work involved, and nearly pointless based on added emphasises on the opposing side's counter measures.  They focused on it less and less and less.  

    VERY few... And none moreso than Bill Belichick in regularity, CONTINUED to try to do this, in the hope that he could garner even the slightest or most remotest beneficial 1 iota from it.  

    Listen to me:

    UNTIL the 2007 offseason, There was NOT 1 UTTERANCE that this was a seriously unfair issue which needed to be addressed in an outward and very open and exacting process...in ANY way.  Nada.  EVERY year, year after year after year, Beit in Competition Committee meetings and the Laws forwarded/enforcements on any given year, Or League Office meetings, OWNER meetings- YOU name it-  Trully forwarding the issue of either curtailing or simply negating sideline taping, was SUCH an afterthought to A MILLION of other issues which DID get addressed and DID get addressed because they were deemed SO much more important, That it was a NON-issue...  Until the 2007 Offseason.

    During that offseason, suddenly there was not 1, but 2 (1 early on, and 1 in the latter middle of OTA/preseason times)- League Office memos that said they WERE going to start to be sticklers towards the act of sideline taping...  ONLY during this time, did the league feel the need to BOTH openly state they'd begin exacting this for the very 1st time ever, and 2- To RE-define what was expected and/or allowed within gameday taping by specific personell of NFL Teams.  BOTH "RE-emphasises" said NADA about any notions RE: Just how heated this issue was to them (1 paragraph faxed memos), NOR how critical they felt about this issue, NOR did they feel ANY of even the slightest attempts to express just how exacting they might be to any offenders of this IF an issue arose like a Rat former Coach making a loud stink about the team that slipped out the door from (w/ several computer disks and insider Pats booklets in tow, and w/out warning) in order to coach their A#1 rival team.  Two 1 Paragraph faxes suddenly during that offseason...And BOTH (go check) are ABSOLUTELY contradictory towards each other, and both are in turn contradictory towards what was stated in stone in The NFL League Rulebook.


    I am TRULLY sorry that Bill Belichick is THAT detail-oriented, and THAT much of a freak football guru psycho, that he DID (or might have, b/c knowing BB he could've just been playing w/ the other team too)- Garner some sorta additional knowledge about what the other team was doing on the field and/or in play-calling and/or in schematics, and/or any weird mutant combo of the above that noone else on earth save for Bill belichick could gain 1 speck of insight from.

    ~~

    If ya need to know how I feel on BOTH Spygate AND the "Suck for Luck" Colts, it's this:

    IF I was Belichick I'd have kept doing the exact same thing...Just because I'm smarter than everyone else, does NOT in my eyes give you the right to suddenly be a hard-##ed stickler to the rules (Rules that AL-ready were being nitpicked and tailored by The CC in order to tailor it towards O play (helping O teams like Indy and St Louis), and hurt D play centered teams (like NE was 100% at this time)...Suddenly newly hard-sticking Rules RE an issue (taping by one's own team personell taping on gameday), of which EVERY-one had the opportunity to try to gain an advantage by, and from which EVERY-one at least tinkered with in order to see whether or not it was trully helpful enough to warrant their time and added energy.

    ^  Dats how I feel...  Sorry I see sh#t that you can't because I'm smarter and harder working and have more knowledge THAN YOU.  I'm just as unrepetant as Belichick apparently was, when I come to believe that others are attempting to unfairly to SPECIFICALLY undermine MY efforts from above (w/ and using laws and re-emphasises of laws which over and over and over, actually counteract the things that benefit ME the most, while them subsequently helping the top-tiered guys whom I recognize as my greatest Lombardi rivals, the most).


    "Suck for Luck"-  Good for Indy...  It's unimaginably evident and plain as day that this was an absolute motive of theirs based on their actions (and non-actions) during this past season.  It ain't against the rule...  Hurting your fanbase, Destroying your product for 1 full year while hurting the merits of your franchise in any given football fan's regard for you by undermining your own product, and killing aspects of the faith in the product your selling to those whom are faithful & loyal & dedicated believers in your franchise product...  < This stuff, is currently NOT against the rules in The NFL as I understand it.  

    Whatever...Good for Bill Polian.  Here's how to tell if you are a sleezeball multi-multi-multi Millionaire executive big-wig...

    You have these options and these 2 choices to consider:

    A /> Will I lose more fans and more money and more franchise success, by starting up a very long and very slow and very thorough total team rebuilding process, which includes- My entire Defense, Half of my Offensive Line, All of my Runningbacks, Any Tightends, some more receivers, and trying to secure a viable Franchise #1 NFL Quarterback during this time, too.  If I do this, I'll still continue to try to field the very best product on the field that I can...but Me, and EVERY-one else with eyes, can see that the overhaul that is trully needed in order to gain even the remotest of postseason possibilities (let alone success), is SO total and overwhelmingly massive....that doing it this way, might tack YEARS before I might see any trully viably decent Colt squad take my stadium field.     

    Or...        

    B />  Upon the full weight of just HOW much in such a massive overhauling that I'll need in order to secure a squad decent enough to become and be regarded as perrenial playoff contender- hitting my in FULL weight and under ZERO illusions, I'll deliberately s#ck to high-he!! this year (upon recognizing after the 1st 3 or 4 games that I'm gonna s#ck anyways, to either a greater or lesser intent of "s#ckiness").  IF I do this, I'll be undermining those whom trully believe in what I offer & sell, and I'll be scr#wing over those whom are unfortunate enough to be playing on my 2011 cr#p-squad, And deliberately trying to lose sorta defeats the entire purpose of what a Pro Sport's team should always be doing (i.e. trying their sincerest & hardest to win for themselves, their city, their owners, and their fans).  BUT, IF I just try a tad bit extra TO LOSE this year, I'd suddenly find myself in the comfortable position of having the #1 overall draft pick during the next draft at the end of this season, which by most every regard, has in it what most every scout believes to be a Once-in-a-Decade type of amazingly calibered in his gameplay, Franchise #1 NFL QB prospect in it...  Then, I'll be at the top again of Rd #2, wherein I could ALSO garner myself either THE best, Or at worst 2nd best player at any position which gets undervalued and either largely overlooked or totally overlooked in rd #1 (TE, OG, OC, NT, ILB, 4-3 OLB, & oftentimes Safety & RB to a slightly lesser but still prevelant extant or another).


    So, Polian chose Option "B", And I gotta say, "Ehh...?"  So what?  So Your owner's a corporate Billionaire sleeze who doesn't give 1 sh#t on earth about you lesser folks that believe & have steadily held strong in their solid faith in his product...What-ever...so what?  'Least he didn't break any rules...right? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again": RESPONSE: What a croc...LOL!!!  Typical TP non-response.  Rather than disprove the point, throw "what a croc...LOL!!" at it.  Why's it a croc, TP? His examples are opinions.
     
    RESPONSE: More lies....how typical of you. You're bogus, biased opinion has been refuted by the article posted, based on facts, not opinions. Again, his points are not opinions, but are deductions, based on facts. What facts have you to buttress your biased opinion?  

      RESPONSE: No. They are deductions that are based on facts. From thesaurus.com, synonyms for deduction:  assumption, speculation.  Facts are a good basis for developing an opinion, but it doesn't make the opinion itself a fact; its just an opinion, and as noted above, one's acceptance or rejection of that opinion usually is the result of his/her already established thoughts on the subject.   I don't know if brad wells is a colts fan. Based on his articles that I've read he more opinion maker searching for web hits than a fan.

    RESPONSE: More lies. This from Merriam-Websters' dictionary:
         A deduction is the "deriving of a conclusion by reasoning" A deduction is "an inference from which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises (in other words, from facts).
         An opinion is a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.   
     
         Opinions are not necessarily based on facts...but can be based on biases. Wells has listed facts to support his conclusion. Therefore, it is a deduction, not an opinion. Meanwhile, you're sorry response is based solely on hearsay, and bias. I see no facts given by you to support your view.
         
      RESPONSE: More lies! Wells is a huge Indiana sports fan, and you know it: http://indiana.sbnation.com/authors/brad-wells    I thought we were talking colts and not Indiana's entire sports scene.  As I said, he may or may not be a colts fan.  In my opinion, I think he's most interested in page hits for his blog which happens to be about the colts.

    RESPONSE: What a pathetic response...LOL!!! Aren't the Colts part of the Indiana sports scene? Heck, over the past decade that the Colts have been the Indiana sports scene. 
         Continuing your denial that Wells is a Colts fan is a joke. I cited the following about Brad Wells in my last post:

    "For years he was known only to the Internet world as "BigBlueShoe," the man behind Stampede Blue. Now, Brad not only writes about the Indianapolis Colts at the blog he helped found, but works as the editor of SB Nation Indiana, the sports regional site for SBNation.com...Brad has a genuine love for Indiana sports. He also thinks Indiana sports fans are some of the smartest, most knowledgeable fans in the country.

         Wells founded the Colts' blog, Stampede Blue...writes constantly about the Indianapolis Colts, is the editor of SBNation, and "has a genuine love for Indiana sports...(and) thinks that Indiana sports fans are some of the smartest, most knowledgeable fans in the country."
         Yet, you still claim he is not a Colts fan. Well, I guess that's your opinion, based on your biases and agenda...if not a flat out lie. On the other hand, my assessment that he is a huge Colts fan is a deduction...based on the facts presented above.      


    RESPONSE: Let's see now...first you claimed that you don't know who Wells is...yet you say that "it is widely known that he had an axe to grind with Polian..." Obviously then, you do know who he is, and have read at least some of his articles.        Where's your proof that Wells merely has an axe to grind with Polian? Isn't that just your opinion? Most Colts fans had an axe to grind with Polian, dating back to the 2009 season, when Polian pulled the plug on Indy's shot at a perfect season. Heck,  Colts' owner Jim Irsay obviously had an axe to grind with Polian, considering that he gave Polian his son the boot.   I did once claim that I was unaware of the Stampedeblue website.  In fact, it may have been you that directed me to it.
     
    RESPONSE: Where and when did you claim that? Even if you did, do you really expect us to believe that a hard core Colts' fan like yourself would be unaware of the teams' top sports blog? LOL!!!

    I've since perused the site and found Wells to be quite obnoxious and downright petty as it related to his colts rants and specifically polian.  Its my opinion that Wells had an axe to grind with polian.
     
    RESPONSE: And what is this opinion based upon, other than your own bias, and agenda?  

     I don't consider firing someone as having an axe to grind.  Polian screwed up by giving power to his son who clearly was not prepared to handle the position.  Having an axe to grind, imo, means, continuous complaining about someone or something.
     
    RESPONSE: What?? "Having an axe to grind means continuous complaining about someone??" Where did you find that definition from? Having an "axe to grind" means to attempt to get even with someone for some perceived wrong or slight. Continuous complaining about a GM would seem to fall under the purview or criticism. Wouldn't you agree? So, if any of us are critical of a GM, as I am from time to time with BB, does that mean that I have "an axe to grind"?   

    RESPONSE: You have failed to answer my questions. Do you deny that the examples Wells listed have merit? Are you still denying that Wells is a die hard Colts fan? Don't you think that his deductions are logical? If not, why not? What explanations can you offer as to why the Colts chose not to pick up Kyle Orton after he was waived by Denver...chose to continue to play a completely ineffective Curtis Painter, when it was obvious to all that had eyes that he was terrible...and why did the Colts decide to stick with the obviously ineffective "Manikin", Jim Caldwell, for the entire 2011 season?   Texaspat you are the one who has failed.  I asked you to prove that the colts intentionally tanked.  Your effort at doing so was to present an opinion piece from someone who had an axe to grind against the President of the club at the time.  To prove it, you have to provide facts not opinions.
     
    RESPONSE: Facts were presented:

    1.) Orton wasn't brought in;

    2.) The pitiful Painter was allowed to play up to game 10 of the 2011 season;

    3.) The inept Jim Caldwell (who you yourself have criticized in the past), was maintained for the entire season.  


     The examples you cite fall short.  I think his opinions are shortsighted.
     
    RESPONSE: No. The three things above are facts. There is no dispute about them. From these facts, and the knowledge that Polian wanted to hand the team over to his son, with a young franchise QB in place...a deduction is formed that the Colts tanked their 2011 season. It is not an opinion, based on bias, or an agenda. It's obvious from all of the above that the Colts did not strive to do everything in their power to win games in 2011.

    As for Orton, I think the colts did not pick him up because they'd already paid Collins, had limited cap space, could not come to an agreement with him earlier in the year so it was unlikely they'd be able to do something late in the year.
     
    RESPONSE: "You think" are the key words, above. In other words, you are do have any facts to back up your position. So...this is your opinion, not a deduction based on facts.  

     Further, its not just about the colts needs, but also Orton's desires not just for the rest of the year but also the next year.

    RESPONSE: Do you know Orton? Has he revealed to you his desires? Or, perhaps you a mind reader? 
     
    Painter, was very effective in spurts.
     
    RESPONSE: LOL!!! When was Painter ever "very effective"?

    He knew the colts offense better than any other QB.  Orlovsky had done nothing in the preseason to distinguish himself.
     
    RESPONSE: Lies! Orlovsky actually outplayed Painter in the 2011 pre-season. He also had starting experience. Yet, the Colts chose to stick with the pathetic Painter:  http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/9/27/2453478/colts-reportedly-re-sign-qb-dan-orlovsky 

    Finally, Painter started only one more game after Wells' rant, which was the week after the bye and against the Panthers.  There was reason to believe the colts and painter could win.
     
    RESPONSE: Painter was finally relieved in Week 13 last year, after the Colts had dropped to 0-11, and were preparing to play the Patriots in Foxborough. So...by the time the change was made, the horse had already left the barn on the Colts' season...and getting the #1 overall pick was pretty much a foregone conclusion. 
         "Maybe the answer was that Painter was a contingency planall along, a last case scenario to be used only when the season was truly out of reach, and sure enough, he was subbed in for Collins the moment people realized this team was going nowhere. I might just be inventing this (okay, I am), but if Bill Polian truly wanted to wreck the season and wind up with Andrew Luck's draft rights, would he have done anything different than he has so far? It does seem pretty odd that a franchise as consistently spot on as the Colts, with nine consecutive 10-win seasons, would really put their hands in the fate of Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky as Plan B. Painter just went almost five full games without a touchdown pass -- surely, this same player didn't fool anyone coming into the season, when they immediately signed Kerry Collins. And surely they could have come up with a better backup-backup than the 0-7 Orlovsky.

    This is all completespeculation on my part, but if it's true, Bill Polian is nothing short of a genius. He realized that if the Colts are going to lose this year, they might as well lose as epically as possible, allowing them to wind up with the most coveted rookie quarterback in several decades": http://www.inhistoric.com/2011/11/30/2600668/painter-and-orlovsky-two-of-the-worst-ever

    As for caldwell, in his first season as head coach, he took his team to the superbowl.  In his second season with a decimated team and an injured Manning, he took the colts to the playoffs.  We all understood the value of Manning especially that late in the season.  Wells' shortsighted rant however, wanted change and he wanted it right then.  The fact is that hiring a new coach at that time would have been difficult.
     
    RESPONSE: And we know this because you say so?

    The coaching pool would have been thin given that all coaches were currently in season.  I suppose the colts could have promoted from within, but who?  No one had that kind of experience.  It made no sense for the colts to can Caldwell at that time.
     
    RESPONSE: What a joke. What kind of experience did "The Manikin" have? He had a pathetic 26-63 record as a college coach at Wake Forest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Caldwell_(American_football)
    Caldwell did nothing last year to help the team win.  He did not adjust his game plans from week to week: http://voices.yahoo.com/jim-caldwell-fired-no-matter-fan-opinion-10702573.html. When Peyton Manning played, Caldwell basically just sat back and watched him perform. Furthermore, going into the 2011 season, most realized that Caldwell was incompetent, after his silly time-out decision cost the Colts a playoff win against the Jets...and a trip to an AFC title game: http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2011/01/indianapolis-colts-should-fire-jim-caldwell/     


     RESPONSE: BS. You asked for proof showing that the Colts tanked their season last year in order to get Luck. I have presented facts (not opinions), as presented in the article above, which were written by a huge Colts' fan, which demonstrate that Indy made a concerted effort to stay terrible, or tank. What proof do you have which show that the Colts did not tank their season, other than your lies, childish denials, and bogus opinions?      Once again, you have demonstrated for all to see why you no credibility on this forum, and why no one should take you seriously.    And I am still waiting for that proof.  You've only presented the opinion of a colts blogger who had an axe to grind against the president of the team at that time.  If you believe you presented proof, enjoy your fantasy.  It just makes you look dumb.
     
    RESPONSE: I'll let the readers decide who among us has presented facts, and who presented an opinion, based on an agenda...and supported by lies. As usual, I have revealed you to be who you are...an Indy troll who will say anything, including lie, in an attempt to win an argument on a football forum. How pathetic is that...LOL!!!   
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    You're a joke TP. 

    That article didn't refute my opinion.  That article represents Wells' opinion and I disagree with it.  Unfortunately, your effort at artful language to support your point doesn't work. 

    Orton wasn't brought in.  Not bringing orton in does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked the season. 

    Allowing Painter to play up to game 10 does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked. 

    Not firing Caldwell until after the season does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked. 

    Exactly where do you get that Polian wanted to hand a young QB over to his son?  His son was already the GM and making personnel decisions.  In fact, aside from the Manning injury, you could suggest that the demise of the colts was related to Chris Polian's (not his Dad's) poor personnel decisions. 

    I disagree that Orlovsky outplayed Painter in the preseason and have said that for quite sometime.  Orlovsky did nothing to distinguish himself from Painter in the preseason and when that happens, you keep the guy who knows the team. 

    Do you see how easy it is to have an opinion different from someone else?

    Brad Wells and you are free to draw whatever conclusions you like based on the information you have.  Those conclusions, are simply opinions and they differ from mine. 

    Let me know when you get some real proof.  Maybe Polian will provide that proof someday by telling us that that was his plan all along.  Maybe he'll tell us how he managed to get the players on the field to play to a level less than their best in order to ensure that tanking.  Maybe he'll tell us he whacked manning in the neck while manning was sleeping. 

    Or maybe we'll hear it from Caldwell. 

    Until then, we have no proof, just opinion about the colts.  You are free to have yours and so is Brad Wells.  And so, to your consternation, am I.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    If they tank hard enough again this season they'll get the best left tackle in the draft. Even the Jests don't tank, they just suck. Lower then the Jests.. thats got to be hard to take.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]If they tank hard enough again this season they'll get the best left tackle in the draft. Even the Jests don't tank, they just suck. Lower then the Jests.. thats got to be hard to take.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]
    Not really, because I don't have the same bias you do.  I don't see it your way.  regardless, they don't need a left tackle.  There is an expecation that Castonzo will be just fine. 

    That said, they do need a lot and a single player isn't going to change that.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Not really, because I don't have the same bias you do.

    RESPONSE: What a lying sack of fertilyzer you are, Dog(ggggg)...LOL!!!

    I don't see it your way.  regardless, they don't need a left tackle.  There is an expecation that Castonzo will be just fine.

    RESPONSE: More bias on your part, Dog(ggggg)? According to you, the Colts don't need a LT because "there is an expectation that Castonzo will be just fine". According to you, wasn't there also an expectation that QB Curtis Painter would be just fine too, last year? So, I guess we Patriot fans are worrying for nothing. Since there's an expectation that the Pats' OL will be fine, we needn't be concerned? 
         Idiot! Do you have any facts...reports...articles to cite, showing that Castonzo is getting the job done? If so, please share it with us, before you give your biased opinion that he'll be fine. That way, we can form a deduction, based on some facts, that Castanzo will be fine. Get it...moron!    


    That said, they do need a lot and a single player isn't going to change that.

    RESPONSE: Yet another ridiculous statement, which reveals just how little you know about football. The Indy franchise's hopes and dreams for the future rest upon one player, QB Andrew Luck. If he gets injured, the Colts are done. The LT is a QB's top body guard, protecting his blind side. Accordingly, a strong argument can be made than an effective LT is the second most important player on the team. So...in the case of a QB or LT, a single player could spell the difference between being a 11-5 playoff team, or a 5-11 also-ran.  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    How am I lying TP?  All you do is blather and name call.  Why don't you answer my questions before replying to posts that weren't even directed to you? 

    You are really demonstrating that your maturity is no greater than that of a 10 year old.  I am sure your mother would be proud. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]Underdogg , listen clearly please- Taping WAS not illegal.  There were varying stipulations and pretty f'!ng ambiguous and contradictory criterion set in place WHEN a team was taping (covered booth, non-covered booth but on own sideline, any sideline but in a marked team uni at all times, only on own sideline and no team uni, etc.). It was always ambiguous and EVERY Coach on EVERY F'!NG team tinkered with this in 1 form and/or fashion or another.  EVERY one.  It was accepted as common practice, NEVER enforced, and never RE-stated and RE-emphasized into any sorta clear and lucid lay down of what or what was not allowed...It's the way it was. It is why even now ya see Coaches either hiding and/or quickly murmering their play calls into the field under breath...It's the reason why teams had anywhere from 2-even 5 different sets of real & fake hand signals and set names on any given matchup on any given Sunday. A few Coaches like Tony Dungy, were so far down on the insipid and amazingly unoriginal and uncreative scale, that after touching upon it's benefits (or not), they abandoned it REALLY early on due to it having zero advantage based on what I stated in the opposing side's alterations and the like, up above.  Solely from these dull yokels of miniscule consciousness, Does and did one here the now suddenly righteous & exacting morality of just HOW terribly wrong that this practice was.  A practice that EVERY-one tried, and many still deployed on their apparent behalf. A great many coaches did it THE WHOLE Span during this time period...AND during this span as the opposing side's team did even more game-in-game changes and alterings and were more exacting that eyes were looking over them in their sideline endeavors on any Sunday, they did it less and less and less.  THESE folks HAVE said, that the minor help they DID receive became meaningless based on the effort and work involved, and nearly pointless based on added emphasises on the opposing side's counter measures.  They focused on it less and less and less.   VERY few... And none moreso than Bill Belichick in regularity, CONTINUED to try to do this, in the hope that he could garner even the slightest or most remotest beneficial 1 iota from it.   Listen to me: UNTIL the 2007 offseason, There was NOT 1 UTTERANCE that this was a seriously unfair issue which needed to be addressed in an outward and very open and exacting process...in ANY way.  Nada.  EVERY year, year after year after year, Beit in Competition Committee meetings and the Laws forwarded/enforcements on any given year, Or League Office meetings, OWNER meetings- YOU name it-  Trully forwarding the issue of either curtailing or simply negating sideline taping, was SUCH an afterthought to A MILLION of other issues which DID get addressed and DID get addressed because they were deemed SO much more important, That it was a NON-issue...  Until the 2007 Offseason. During that offseason, suddenly there was not 1, but 2 (1 early on, and 1 in the latter middle of OTA/preseason times)- League Office memos that said they WERE going to start to be sticklers towards the act of sideline taping...  ONLY during this time, did the league feel the need to BOTH openly state they'd begin exacting this for the very 1st time ever, and 2- To RE-define what was expected and/or allowed within gameday taping by specific personell of NFL Teams.  BOTH "RE-emphasises" said NADA about any notions RE: Just how heated this issue was to them (1 paragraph faxed memos), NOR how critical they felt about this issue, NOR did they feel ANY of even the slightest attempts to express just how exacting they might be to any offenders of this IF an issue arose like a Rat former Coach making a loud stink about the team that slipped out the door from (w/ several computer disks and insider Pats booklets in tow, and w/out warning) in order to coach their A#1 rival team.  Two 1 Paragraph faxes suddenly during that offseason...And BOTH (go check) are ABSOLUTELY contradictory towards each other, and both are in turn contradictory towards what was stated in stone in The NFL League Rulebook. I am TRULLY sorry that Bill Belichick is THAT detail-oriented, and THAT much of a freak football guru psycho, that he DID (or might have, b/c knowing BB he could've just been playing w/ the other team too)- Garner some sorta additional knowledge about what the other team was doing on the field and/or in play-calling and/or in schematics, and/or any weird mutant combo of the above that noone else on earth save for Bill belichick could gain 1 speck of insight from. ~~ If ya need to know how I feel on BOTH Spygate AND the "Suck for Luck" Colts, it's this: IF I was Belichick I'd have kept doing the exact same thing...Just because I'm smarter than everyone else, does NOT in my eyes give you the right to suddenly be a hard-##ed stickler to the rules (Rules that AL-ready were being nitpicked and tailored by The CC in order to tailor it towards O play (helping O teams like Indy and St Louis), and hurt D play centered teams (like NE was 100% at this time)...Suddenly newly hard-sticking Rules RE an issue (taping by one's own team personell taping on gameday), of which EVERY-one had the opportunity to try to gain an advantage by, and from which EVERY-one at least tinkered with in order to see whether or not it was trully helpful enough to warrant their time and added energy. ^  Dats how I feel...  Sorry I see sh#t that you can't because I'm smarter and harder working and have more knowledge THAN YOU.  I'm just as unrepetant as Belichick apparently was, when I come to believe that others are attempting to unfairly to SPECIFICALLY undermine MY efforts from above (w/ and using laws and re-emphasises of laws which over and over and over, actually counteract the things that benefit ME the most, while them subsequently helping the top-tiered guys whom I recognize as my greatest Lombardi rivals, the most). "Suck for Luck"-  Good for Indy...  It's unimaginably evident and plain as day that this was an absolute motive of theirs based on their actions (and non-actions) during this past season.  It ain't against the rule...  Hurting your fanbase, Destroying your product for 1 full year while hurting the merits of your franchise in any given football fan's regard for you by undermining your own product, and killing aspects of the faith in the product your selling to those whom are faithful & loyal & dedicated believers in your franchise product...  < This stuff, is currently NOT against the rules in The NFL as I understand it.   Whatever...Good for Bill Polian.  Here's how to tell if you are a sleezeball multi-multi-multi Millionaire executive big-wig... You have these options and these 2 choices to consider: A /> Will I lose more fans and more money and more franchise success, by starting up a very long and very slow and very thorough total team rebuilding process, which includes- My entire Defense, Half of my Offensive Line, All of my Runningbacks, Any Tightends, some more receivers, and trying to secure a viable Franchise #1 NFL Quarterback during this time, too.  If I do this, I'll still continue to try to field the very best product on the field that I can...but Me, and EVERY-one else with eyes, can see that the overhaul that is trully needed in order to gain even the remotest of postseason possibilities (let alone success), is SO total and overwhelmingly massive....that doing it this way, might tack YEARS before I might see any trully viably decent Colt squad take my stadium field.      Or...         B />  Upon the full weight of just HOW much in such a massive overhauling that I'll need in order to secure a squad decent enough to become and be regarded as perrenial playoff contender- hitting my in FULL weight and under ZERO illusions, I'll deliberately s#ck to high-he!! this year (upon recognizing after the 1st 3 or 4 games that I'm gonna s#ck anyways, to either a greater or lesser intent of "s#ckiness").  IF I do this, I'll be undermining those whom trully believe in what I offer & sell, and I'll be scr#wing over those whom are unfortunate enough to be playing on my 2011 cr#p-squad, And deliberately trying to lose sorta defeats the entire purpose of what a Pro Sport's team should always be doing (i.e. trying their sincerest & hardest to win for themselves, their city, their owners, and their fans).  BUT, IF I just try a tad bit extra TO LOSE this year, I'd suddenly find myself in the comfortable position of having the #1 overall draft pick during the next draft at the end of this season, which by most every regard, has in it what most every scout believes to be a Once-in-a-Decade type of amazingly calibered in his gameplay, Franchise #1 NFL QB prospect in it...  Then, I'll be at the top again of Rd #2, wherein I could ALSO garner myself either THE best, Or at worst 2nd best player at any position which gets undervalued and either largely overlooked or totally overlooked in rd #1 (TE, OG, OC, NT, ILB, 4-3 OLB, & oftentimes Safety & RB to a slightly lesser but still prevelant extant or another). So, Polian chose Option "B", And I gotta say, "Ehh...?"  So what?  So Your owner's a corporate Billionaire sleeze who doesn't give 1 sh#t on earth about you lesser folks that believe & have steadily held strong in their solid faith in his product...What-ever...so what?  'Least he didn't break any rules...right? 
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    Wow!  That's quite a rant.  What it lacks in accuracy and logical cohesion, it makes up for in spirit and random capitalization...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]You're a joke TP.

    RESONSE: Coming from you, that's a compliment.

    That article didn't refute my opinion.

    RESPONSE: If you say so, Dog(ggggg).

    That article represents Wells' opinion and I disagree with it.

    RESPONSE: Yes...based upon your own biased views. But, you have no facts to support your heavily biased opinion. You just say so. Wells has provided a bevy of facts, making his statements deductions, not opinions.

    Unfortunately, your effort at artful language to support your point doesn't work.

    RESPONSE: LOL!!! Whatever you say, Dog(ggggg).

    Orton wasn't brought in.  Not bringing orton in does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked the season.

    RESPONSE: Come now, Dog(ggggg). Do you deny that Orton is a more talented QB than Painter? Do you deny that Orton has far more experience than Painter?   

    Allowing Painter to play up to game 10 does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked.

    RESPONSE: It does prove that, at worst, that the Colts were accepting losing. At best, the Colts weren't being vigilant.

    Not firing Caldwell until after the season does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked.

    RESPONSE: Many Colts fans were calling for Caldwell's head after his time-out fiasco in the home play-off loss to the Jets cost the Colts a trip to the AFC title game. The guy had lost his team, wasn't making adjustments from game to game (see the article previously posted above on the matter), and the Colts were a laughing stock. Remember that 62-7 thrashing in New Orleans? If Polian wanted to shake up his team, and send them a message, what better way than by firing Caldwell?   

    Exactly where do you get that Polian wanted to hand a young QB over to his son?  His son was already the GM and making personnel decisions.  In fact, aside from the Manning injury, you could suggest that the demise of the colts was related to Chris Polian's (not his Dad's) poor personnel decisions.

    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Are you denying that Polian and his son were looking to the future? Are you denying that Polian didn't understand that Luck was the QB of the future? One of Polian's sons was coaching at Stanford, where he surely was keeping close tabs on Andrew, and reporting everything there was to know about the kid to Daddy. Bill Polian personally began scouting Luck in September of the 2011 season, not in November! The Polians planned and plotted to get him, knowing that Luck was even a better prospect than Peyton Manning: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8222bf3a/article/polian-spent-saturday-watching-stanfords-luck-play-vs-duke  

    I disagree that Orlovsky outplayed Painter in the preseason and have said that for quite sometime. Orlovsky did nothing to distinguish himself from Painter in the preseason and when that happens, you keep the guy who knows the team.

    RESPONSE: Liar:

         "Again, like many people who tortured themselves repeatedlywatched all four Colts preseason games, it was obvious Orlovsky outplayed Painter and is, overall , a better quarterback. Just like with Tom Brandstaterlast season (another somewhat below average QB who outplayed Painter), the Colts have a frustrating tendency to make excuses for Painter at the expense of better options at the back-up QB position": http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/9/27/2453478/colts-reportedly-re-sign-qb-dan-orlovsky

    Do you see how easy it is to have an opinion different from someone else?

    Brad Wells and you are free to draw whatever conclusions you like based on the information you have.  Those conclusions, are simply opinions and they differ from mine. 

    Let me know when you get some real proof.  Maybe Polian will provide that proof someday by telling us that that was his plan all along.  Maybe he'll tell us how he managed to get the players on the field to play to a level less than their best in order to ensure that tanking.  Maybe he'll tell us he whacked manning in the neck while manning was sleeping. 

    Or maybe we'll hear it from Caldwell. 

    Until then, we have no proof, just opinion about the colts.  You are free to have yours and so is Brad Wells.  And so, to your consternation, am I. 
     
    RESPONSE: Again...the position taken by Wells and myself are, much to your consternation, based on deductions, founded in fact. But, your so-called opinion is based on lies and a bias, to fit your warped template.
         Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious is yet a further demonstration as to why you have zero credibility on this forum, and why no one should take you seriously.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]How am I lying TP?  All you do is blather and name call.  Why don't you answer my questions before replying to posts that weren't even directed to you?  You are really demonstrating that your maturity is no greater than that of a 10 year old.  I am sure your mother would be proud. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

         One of the things my mother taught me was not to hang out with known liars. So...adios, Dog(ggggg).
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    Typical TP. 

    As a kid, I'll bet you were one of those guys who brought a basketball to the court, talked a bunch of trash until it was given back to you, and then, because you didn't have the stones to take what you dished out, took your ball and ran home to Mommy. 

    Its a shame TP, but you might be the most pathetic guy on the board.  I feel sorry for you. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    You're a joke TP.
    RESONSE: Coming from you, that's a compliment.
    Not surprising.

    That article didn't refute my opinion.
    RESPONSE: If you say so, Dog(ggggg).
    I do. 

    That article represents Wells' opinion and I disagree with it.
    RESPONSE: Yes...based upon your own biased views. But, you have no facts to support your heavily biased opinion. You just say so. Wells has provided a bevy of facts, making his statements deductions, not opinions.
    Of course.  What other viewpoint would I have.  What other viewpoint would you or Wells have. 


    Unfortunately, your effort at artful language to support your point doesn't work.
    RESPONSE: LOL!!! Whatever you say, Dog(ggggg).
    Thanks. 

    Orton wasn't brought in.  Not bringing orton in does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked the season.
    RESPONSE: Come now, Dog(ggggg). Do you deny that Orton is a more talented QB than Painter? Do you deny that Orton has far more experience than Painter?   
    I do think Orton is better than Painter and has more experience, but the colts were already paying 4 QB's including Manning, Collins (at 2 yrs/4 mill/yr), Painter, and Orlovsky.  Orton's contract was 8 million in 2011 and another 3 million in 2012.  The team simply could not afford to pay another QB without completely mortgaging their future.  Unfortunately, future salaries and cap limits get in the way of such things.  Do we even know if Orton would have been willing to show up for the colts given that Manning was rehabbing.  They couldn't get him earlier in the season when they tried, nor could they get Hasselbeck whom they also courted.  These guys wanted to be starters for a team, not temporary bandaids.   

    Allowing Painter to play up to game 10 does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked.
    RESPONSE: It does prove that, at worst, that the Colts were accepting losing. At best, the Colts weren't being vigilant.
    I completely disagree.  Curtis Painter's first 4 games were effective.  The 5th game (NO) could not be laid at Painter.  Painter had periods of very effective play followed by ineptitude.  It was very frustrating, but I understood the colts mentality.  The colts of the Dungy/Polian era did not operate with knee jerk reactions.  That wasn't their MO, so I understood their process relating to Painter as frustrating as it was. 


    Not firing Caldwell until after the season does not prove that the colts intentionally tanked.
    RESPONSE: Many Colts fans were calling for Caldwell's head after his time-out fiasco in the home play-off loss to the Jets cost the Colts a trip to the AFC title game. The guy had lost his team, wasn't making adjustments from game to game (see the article previously posted above on the matter), and the Colts were a laughing stock. Remember that 62-7 thrashing in New Orleans? If Polian wanted to shake up his team, and send them a message, what better way than by firing Caldwell?   
    So what?  I didn't like Caldwell either, but that doesn't mean you drop him with no options and a very thin available coaching pool in the middle of the season.  You seem to forget that Manning was still on the team at the time and there was an expectation that he'd be back.  Manning and Caldwell had a strong relationship, as did Caldwell with Polian.  Further, Caldwell wasn't responsible for Manning's injury.  Blaming him after making the playoffs and a superbowl in 2 yrs of head coaching is ridiculous, even if you don't like him.  Pure bias TP.  Same with Wells who had an axe to grind against polian. 


    Exactly where do you get that Polian wanted to hand a young QB over to his son?  His son was already the GM and making personnel decisions.  In fact, aside from the Manning injury, you could suggest that the demise of the colts was related to Chris Polian's (not his Dad's) poor personnel decisions.
    RESPONSE: Surely you jest. Are you denying that Polian and his son were looking to the future? Are you denying that Polian didn't understand that Luck was the QB of the future? One of Polian's sons was coaching at Stanford, where he surely was keeping close tabs on Andrew, and reporting everything there was to know about the kid to Daddy. Bill Polian personally began scouting Luck in September of the 2011 season, not in November! The Polians planned and plotted to get him, knowing that Luck was even a better prospect than Peyton Manning: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8222bf3a/article/polian-spent-saturday-watching-stanfords-luck-play-vs-duke  
    Great prospects sometimes fail.  Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Jeff George, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell.  As the cliche goes, TP, a bird in hand is better than 2 in the bush.  The colts had Manning, and I believe they expected he would retire a colt.  Further, Polian could have never jettisoned Manning without Irsay's blessing.  If the colts wanted to get rid of Manning why did they sign him to a contract in the offseason.  makes no sense. 

    I disagree that Orlovsky outplayed Painter in the preseason and have said that for quite sometime. Orlovsky did nothing to distinguish himself from Painter in the preseason and when that happens, you keep the guy who knows the team.
    RESPONSE: Liar:

         "Again, like many people who tortured themselves repeatedlywatched all four Colts preseason games, it was obvious Orlovsky outplayed Painter and is, overall , a better quarterback. Just like with Tom Brandstaterlast season (another somewhat below average QB who outplayed Painter), the Colts have a frustrating tendency to make excuses for Painter at the expense of better options at the back-up QB position": http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/9/27/2453478/colts-reportedly-re-sign-qb-dan-orlovsky
    Liar?  How can my opinion be a lie?  Maybe you just don't understand.  I watched the preseason and I disagree with Wells opinion.  I thought Orlovsky did nothing to distinguish himself from Painter and because of that, you always keep the guy who knows the system. 


    Do you see how easy it is to have an opinion different from someone else?
    Brad Wells and you are free to draw whatever conclusions you like based on the information you have.  Those conclusions, are simply opinions and they differ from mine. 
    Let me know when you get some real proof.  Maybe Polian will provide that proof someday by telling us that that was his plan all along.  Maybe he'll tell us how he managed to get the players on the field to play to a level less than their best in order to ensure that tanking.  Maybe he'll tell us he whacked manning in the neck while manning was sleeping. 
    Or maybe we'll hear it from Caldwell. 
    Until then, we have no proof, just opinion about the colts.  You are free to have yours and so is Brad Wells.  And so, to your consternation, am I. 
     RESPONSE: Again...the position taken by Wells and myself are, much to your consternation, based on deductions, founded in fact. But, your so-called opinion is based on lies and a bias, to fit your warped template.
         Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious is yet a further demonstration as to why you have zero credibility on this forum, and why no one should take you seriously.
    Its a shame that you don't get it.  Mine are also based on deductions founded in fact.  What I don't know is whether your inabilities are based on a lack of intelligence or simply hatred for me.  Whatever it is, you just don't get it. 

     

Share