McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

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

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Maybe Peyton can get together with Favre this February and have a "Whine and Cheese" Super Bowl party (while watching the game on TV)! And in 06 the Colts would never have made it to the AFCCG if their defense didn't do a complete 180, and they hadn't had to face two teams who couldn't score a TD if they put the cheerleaders out there to defend! When it's playoff time, and your defense gives you the ball first and goal at the nine, you need to get seven points. The Chiefs came away with nothing. The Ravens couldn't get in the end zone, but neither could Manning. Sanders, Freeney, and company kept the down to 2 FGs, and Adam put up 15 points to win! The luck of the flags surely went their way against NE, and the Raiders could have probably beaten Rex Grossman and the Bears in Miami! Peyton "backed into" that SB win. And the MVP should have been split between Rhodes and Addai, because they couldn't give it to Rex for being MVP for the Colts!!! And who knows? If Brady had one minute in SB 42 like he did in 36 and 38, the outcome could have been different. But enough about Manning. Due to his huge stats, MVP awards, and Pro Bowl appearances, to UD he is the best thing since sliced bread! We in NE just value things like championships more than glory!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE] His defense has frequently ranked in the top 10 in the league (much credit here does go to belichick and on a different note lets not forget the film crew).
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    This is why you'll never be anything but a jealous hypocrite. If you knew anything about football you would stop with the petty nonsense about some irrelevant guy taping signals in the wrong place on the sidelines. That must be why BB beat your team and everyone else according to you, your like the geeky ANALyst who cries his old team lost because of an illegal taped signal. Are you really that dumb?

    Speaking of cheating you hypocrite, I hear the best cheater in the business Howard Mudd is staying on with the Colts this season.Sealed


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

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    B -
    *1st paragraph - you are better than I, and that is ok. 
    *2nd paragraph - I think being a pain in the a*s whiner is about the only thing he could have done to get out of dodge.  You may disagree, but he is not a seasoned veteran who could get his release granted.  Even Favre did not get this from GB.  It may not have been pretty, but IMO he did what he had to.  If he is smart enough he knew at the time the PR hit he was going to take and moved forward. 
    *3rd paragraph - I am not aware of this, not enough of a pats fan to watch closely enough, but you are one of the few whose word I will take for this.  Nice work for the superbowl, but what about the games leading up to it? 

    Root -
    *1st paragraph - As I see it Cutler did his part by operating his offense well enough to earn a probowl in only his 3rd season - second full season starting.  He made appropriate use of the offensive system he was given.  I feel for Campbell.  Maybe he is better than I assume.  At this point however, I know this.  McDaniels did not want Campbell more than Orton.  Orton has done little (as much as I like him) to prove himself thus far.  Maybe the offer from Chicago was better, but if McDaniels saw Campbell as significantly better than Orton, I assume McDaniels is smart enough to take the deal that will make his team win most and most quickly.  then again, maybe Mcdaniels isn't that smart.  
    *2nd paragraph - I disagree that the pats fans on this board accept that the QB is not 100% of the team's success or that the defense didn't have a part in it.  When pats fans for example make the point that Brady is the best QB, they do not consider other positives in his favor (like his defense) but frequently point out that Manning had better offensive weapons. 

    Bub - my comment that Campbell was half the QB of cutler was a exaggerated and you know that.  Play stupid if you choose.  The meaning was that Campbell is not as good as Cutler. 

    As for the stats - Cutler is the better of the 2.  You used the QB rating to prove it.  By the way Cutler's QB rating is better than Brady's over his 1st 3 years.  Does that make him as good as Brady or better at this point?  And with the records, the more apt stat would be wins when starting.  Cutler is better at 17-20 while Campbell is 16-20.  But the real proof that Cutler is better - Washington wanted Cutler in place of Campbell.  If Campbell was that good, Denver would have taken a straight up deal for Campbell, because as mcDaniels said, Cutler is a great QB.  Didn't happen.  

    As for records - You want wins to define a player by wins, but one player is only one of 45 dressing, one of 22 starting which does not consider special teams including kickers.  If Mike Vanderjagt had not been wide right against the steelers in 05, Peyton manning would have had one more win in the playoffs vs. a loss and a chance at another win.  the steelers won that SB.  Was that Manning's fault.  Too much is made of records to define one player's greatness, at least it is in this sport.  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ET27. Show ET27's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    underdogg 


    "If Mike Vanderjagt had not been wide right against the steelers in 05, Peyton manning would have had one more win in the playoffs vs. a loss and a chance at another win"

    If Manning took what the defense gave him on that last drive the colts probably would have won that game.  When a huge game is on the line, Manning typically makes mental mistakes.  The exception to this rule is his performance against the PATS in the AFC championship game on their way to winning the SB.  Unlike Manning, even when Brady loses a playoff game, he plays good enough to win.  The PATS defense in Brady's last two playoff loses are responsible for those loses.  Brady drives his team to late 4th quarter TD's only to see his defense wilt under the pressure.  I honestly do not think Manning can say the same.  Against NE, San Diego and Pittsburg, Manning is not the same quarterback.  He has ARod's malady: he chokes under pressure in the playoffs!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    TrueChamp - I was just being silly when I said that Manning would have 5 and Brady none.  Most here know I occassionally throw out a few zingers as you have just done yourself (miraculous happenings), but I'll say this, both teams if the QB's switched would be just as successful. 

    As for the pats record - the 4 seasons leading up to your 5-11 were 11-5; 10-6; 9-7; 8-8.  I'd say, although declining, the team was pretty good.  Maybe the 5-11 was simply a first year Belichick adjustment.

    To your question - Brady with the colts receivers would be better, but Manning with the pats receivers and on the pats team would have won the superbowls that Brady won.   

    Finally, as for respecting my opinions - I could care less what you think.  You have been on this site (at least in your current iteration) for a total of just over 1 week.  When you get out of your board diapers and actually know something then I might actually care what you think about my credibility.  First you have to be able to swallow solid food without choking.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : Or in short, Brady is good in the clutch having one of the highest third down completion percentages the league has ever seen, having closed out two Super Bowls and numerous AFC championships with game winning drives in the final minutes, whereas Manning needed to be bailed out by injuries on the opposing teams, timely flags by the refs and the NFL's unwavering desire to finally get him ONE championship so Bill Polian and the competition committee would finally get off their proverbial backs. When people think of clutch they think of Brady, when people think of whine they think of Manning. 
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Yep those are valid arguements against manning and the colts.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : This is why you'll never be anything but a jealous hypocrite. If you knew anything about football you would stop with the petty nonsense about some irrelevant guy taping signals in the wrong place on the sidelines. That must be why BB beat your team and everyone else according to you, your like the geeky ANALyst who cries his old team lost because of an illegal taped signal. Are you really that dumb? Speaking of cheating you hypocrite, I hear the best cheater in the business Howard Mudd is staying on with the Colts this season.
    Posted by PatsRfineIn09[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe Jimmy Johnson.  I think he was just looking out for his good buddy Bill Belichick.  Not like he had anything to lose by tossing that one out there for the patriot nation to swallow.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]TrueChamp - I was just being silly when I said that Manning would have 5 and Brady none.  Most here know I occassionally throw out a few zingers as you have just done yourself (miraculous happenings), but I'll say this, both teams if the QB's switched would be just as successful.  As for the pats record - the 4 seasons leading up to your 5-11 were 11-5; 10-6; 9-7; 8-8.  I'd say, although declining, the team was pretty good.  Maybe the 5-11 was simply a first year Belichick adjustment. To your question - Brady with the colts receivers would be better, but Manning with the pats receivers and on the pats team would have won the superbowls that Brady won.    Finally, as for respecting my opinions - I could care less what you think.  You have been on this site (at least in your current iteration) for a total of just over 1 week.  When you get out of your board diapers and actually know something then I might actually care what you think about my credibility.  First you have to be able to swallow solid food without choking.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    I guess your "being silly" was the reason for such an unrealistic statement as Manning would have won 5 superbowls. However then you reinforced that statement by saying if Peyton was on those Pats teams he would have won the superbowls that Brady won. This is exactly the point! You are wrong and I suspect that you know your wrong considering your nature of "being silly". Manning has done nothing in his entire career to indicate that he could effectively manage the 2 minute drill in 2001 against greatest show on turf. Or win one of the greatest games ever played against carolina in 2003 another mvp. Manning is not a clutch Qb and he never will be. Thats the bottom line.
    Only a colts fan would be as petty to believe my current # of posts on a sports forum blog has anything to do with my ability to verbally backhand a troll back into indy. Maybe you offer some good insight on a variety of topics and are actually a contributing member in this forum but so far I have seen nothing to indicate that you are anything but another sour manning fan who posts "silly" comments and off the wall predictions and statements and you obviously let your blind jealousy and hatred for The Patriots franchise cloud your reason.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsGhost. Show RedsGhost's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    "If you can tell me, who did Dungy pimpped when he was coaching then your comments might have relevance."
    and
    "we should all incidents view a skeptics eye until the issue is prove out "

    W T F?!?!? Talk about comments with no relevance!

    Can't bash the NE Patriots nor their great coach, so let's bring in a different city, a different team and a different coach to bash!
    Yay for the trolls! Even if they are homegrown!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again. : I don't believe Jimmy Johnson.  I think he was just looking out for his good buddy Bill Belichick.  Not like he had anything to lose by tossing that one out there for the patriot nation to swallow.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    So JJ is a liar now? What a piece of work. You practice what bspn preaches - sensationalism.
    You don't believe a HOF coach who is on fox every week during the season but you believe the new '' agenda riddled '' jets commish and bspn network LMAO

    See ya hypocrite.

    Is Polian still running the '' i make my own rules committee to suit the colts ''?
    Who took Dungy's spot? Howard Mudd? PM?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Rfine - Thanks for the reaction.  Lets say Johnson is telling the truth (maybe he was).  I just believe the purpose of his comments were to diminish the actions of his friend, and believing this, I automatically have to question his honesty.  But I'll relent and say Johnson was being truthful.  Now truthfully answer these questions. 

    *Did Johnson say that Mudd (coaching for a team other than the colts)was taping signals? 
    *Is stealing signals against NFL rules? 

    After you answer these we can continue our discussion.

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

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    This is "scape," which dictionary.com defines as "a leafless peduncle rising from the ground."




    This is a goat.





    When a guy like Jimmy Johnson suggests that stealing signals and circumventing rules they find inconvenient was (and is) common among NFL coaches, I don't have much problem taking him at his word. When Goodell's attempt to curb this behavior through polite communication failed, he needed to combine the above two things to create what we sometimes refer to as an object lesson.

    What better scapegoat than the face of the most successful franchise in the league?

    The only people who see "Spygate" as anything more than a tempest in a teapot are those whose axes are in dire need of grinding.

    If you think that NFL teams no longer use chicanery to try to gain a competitive advantage, I am still offering competitive rates on oceanfront lots in Saskatchewan for people just like you.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    I like my ocean view just fine right here in my backyard in good ole central indiana, thank you very much. 

    My, the gulls are active today.  Wish they'd stop eating the corn. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    PMike - Further

    I consider you reasonable and your points are well taken, but back in good ol boy JJ's day there were many things that went on that are no-no's today.  Things change - video technology for one.

    I don't know what other teams Goodell might have politely asked to stop the videotaping practice (maybe there are others), but as you inferred, the pats were definitely on the list.    

    You may want to call BB a scapegoat and there may be an inkling of truth there, but it seems to me that the kid that doesn't listen to his parents is going to get his a*s whooped not just for disrespecting authority, but also for repeatedly doing something wrong.

    I never expect any pats fans to take Belichick's actions seriously.  Otherwise they would have to rethink their championships and more importantly, Belichick is too highly revered.  No one was killed for God's sake, right?

    the king of shenanigans had to be realed in and he was. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Belichcik got smacked for hubris more than anything else.

    When Goody said, "Don't touch the stove, it's hot!"  Bill nodded and smiled and waited until Goody left the room and then proceeded to touch the stove.

    Not having access to all the NFL teams' videos, I couldn't say with any degree of certainty how shooting from over here is more beneficial than shooting from over there -- but I will say with absolute certainty that the fines and the draft pick were punishment for laughing in Goodell's face, moreso than for the location of the cameraman.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    I am not sure how you can legitimately ascertain exactly how much of the punishment was due to any specific factor, but here is what I know Goodell said about the mess,

    "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell wrote.

    Hey, I am just a fan.  I don't have access to the inner workings of the NFL.  So, when the commissioner so carefully chooses his words as he did above, I've got to believe him.  It's not like he doesn't have to answer to Bob Kraft.  Kraft has got to be top 5 in the league in ownership influence. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    Mike is right we were punished for laughing in Goodels face and laughing in the rest of the leagues face and thats it. And we are still laughing in your face.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    I've seen that quote.

    You post it a lot.

    I've also heard Belichick reiterate that he misinterpreted the rules.

    People say stuff all the time, but you'll learn a lot more about them by watching what they do rather than listening to what they say.

    Why do you suppose Goodell destroyed the tapes? Why were we never allowed to see this supposedly damning "evidence?"

    Could it possibly be that the evidence did not support his claim and the punishment did not fit the "crime?"
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    still laughing in your face
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    I think a lot of teams were doing this, and I'm sure there are other tricks that the teams are still doing that just haven't been snuffed out yet.  I really don't believe the Pats were the only team that stole signals.  I also question just how useful this was.  Don't the coordinators mix up their signals for just this reason?  Why do many coaches still cover their mouthes when discussing plays on the sideline when they aren't playing the Pats? 

    That said, when the NFL sent out the memo telling teams to stop, BB should have stopped.  It was a mistake to continue and he said that much in his apology.  I hate that the trolls and other teams' fans relentlessly bring this up as a reason for our success, or the reason for their failure.  I can also say that I was ticked off at BB for subjecting the team to this ridicule.  It's over with though, except for the trolls.  But then, wouldn't we do the same to them if it had happened to the Colts?  Of course we would.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]I've seen that quote. You post it a lot. I've also heard Belichick reiterate that he misinterpreted the rules. People say stuff all the time, but you'll learn a lot more about them by watching what they do rather than listening to what they say. Why do you suppose Goodell destroyed the tapes? Why were we never allowed to see this supposedly damning "evidence?" Could it possibly be that the evidence did not support his claim and the punishment did not fit the "crime?"
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    We all know why Goodell destroyed those tapes.  Because the NFL is a private enterprise and revealing evidence does the NFL, the New England Patriots, and Bob Kraft (one of the most powerful owners in the NFL) no public good. 

    The NFL isn't your toy it's the owners' toy.  You just play it like the "grab the stuffed animal" game.  You know, your child puts $1.00 into the machine and then tries to grab the stuffed animal she wants with a lame crane, only to fail.  Then you put $3.00 more in to appease her only to fail as well.  If sharing those tapes could have benefitted the league, they would have been shown, owner be damned. 

    The sad thing about Belichick in this situation is that he actually said he misinterpretted the rule.  This is akin to the "my dog ate my homework" defense.  It is a knowingly pitiful excuse that I assume Belichick may have been forced to use, and he did.  He is not Howard Roark although I think there are some Pats fans who would like to believe he is.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.

    In Response to Re: McDaniel's Broncos are at it again.:
    [QUOTE]This is "scape," which dictionary.com defines as "a leafless peduncle rising from the ground." This is a goat. When a guy like Jimmy Johnson suggests that stealing signals and circumventing rules they find inconvenient was (and is) common among NFL coaches, I don't have much problem taking him at his word. When Goodell's attempt to curb this behavior through polite communication failed, he needed to combine the above two things to create what we sometimes refer to as an object lesson. What better scapegoat than the face of the most successful franchise in the league? The only people who see "Spygate" as anything more than a tempest in a teapot are those whose axes are in dire need of grinding. If you think that NFL teams no longer use chicanery to try to gain a competitive advantage, I am still offering competitive rates on oceanfront lots in Saskatchewan for people just like you.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]


    Two thumbs up for this post.
     

Share