More McDaniels

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    OH BURN! LOL
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]That your team lost two playoff games in a row to the Chargers does not surprise me. Posted by jbolted That's not much to brag about, Bolt! When you consider the Colts track record in the playoffs I think there are a couple teams in the SEC who would have no problem doing the same thing!
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]

    I suppose your right Bub. There is another So Cal team that could probably beat the Colts too. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    And yet 4 of the last 5 games the colts and pats have played the colts were winners.  Does that make the pats Div II?

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]And yet 4 of the last 5 games the colts and pats have played the colts were winners.  Does that make the pats Div II?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    To use your excuse, the Patriots had a lot of injuries in those games. Besides, only one of them was in the playoffs, where NE still holds the edge 2-1. Oh, sorry, I forgot! It's only the Colts who can use injuries as an excuse, the rest of the league isn't allowed under the new "Polian rules". My bad!!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    Nope - excuses aside - the chargers have beaten the colts the last 2 playoff games.  I'd like to point to reasons for it, but none of that matters.  The colts lost.  Same goes for colts pats.  4 of the last 5 games played, the colts won.  No amount of reasoning you can apply will ever change that. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    How did this become the Chargers/Colts/Broncos/Bears forum?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]How did this become the Chargers/Colts/Broncos/Bears forum?
    Posted by Ritchie_az[/QUOTE]

    I don't know but I'm glad UD finally admitted the Colts pumped in crowd noise and turned up the temp in that Colt's Pat's playoff game.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    nice one rt. 

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    Underdogg how many times in a row did the Pats beat the Colts before your little 4 out of 5 stat you have been dropping? Didnt the Pats beat Peyton Manning and the colts like 7 or 8 times in a row before your team started winning? Did the pats have Mannings number for years? Werent teh Pats the "hump" the colts had to get over to gain people respect? Or did you forget about all that. Dont tell half the tale tell the whole story.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    I am not forgettting anything.  I am simply not living in the past.  I lived through the many years when the pats were the "hump" the colts could not get over, but that is ancient history.  The 4 of 5 streak is based on the last 5 games these teams have played against each other.  

    If you want to know the difference, here it is:  Those pat teams comprised NE greats like:  Harrison, Samuel, Law, Vrabel, Colvin, Dillon, Vinateri, McGinest, Milloy, Seau.  These players are no longer playing or no longer on the Pats. 

     
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bradleyBliss. Show bradleyBliss's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]I am not forgettting anything.  I am simply not living in the past.  I lived through the many years when the pats were the "hump" the colts could not get over, but that is ancient history.  The 4 of 5 streak is based on the last 5 games these teams have played against each other.   If you want to know the difference, here it is:  Those pat teams comprised NE greats like:  Harrison, Samuel, Law, Vrabel, Colvin, Dillon, Vinateri, McGinest, Milloy, Seau.  These players are no longer playing or no longer on the Pats.   
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Hey Dog!!! We can say the same about your team not having the same weapons this coming season that you had during your 4 of 5  win run (e.g. harrison, rhoades, James, etc. I think we ALL SHOULD MOVE ON to today. As my man Tedy Bruschi says, "last year or ANY past year doesn't matter THIS YEAR"!!!!!!  TB has something to prove to the league and all of the cheap shot wannabes (like the clown who took out his knee last season) that 2007 was no fluke. I think he will lay waste to your boys and the rest of the NFL. BTW, when we FINALLY start playing your ponies in Foxboro again....maybe our streak will begin again.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    Ok Underdogg but is teh over stat on the Brady VS Manning Belichick VS Dungy games over the last decade? You have won 4 out of teh last 5 games but what is teh over all stat of teh Pats VS Colts games this decade? Cause last time I check we had the edge. And in case you didnt know by you saying "we have won 4 out of teh 5 last five games" you are in fact living in teh past. In fact the very next day after the game was played it became the past so you too are living in the past my friend. so if we are both living in teh past why not tell the whole story instead of trying to be slick and only taling about teh last 5 games. You only want to talk about those 5 games because before that we had your number like no one else. so whats the over all stat?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]Ok Underdogg but is teh over stat on the Brady VS Manning Belichick VS Dungy games over the last decade? You have won 4 out of teh last 5 games but what is teh over all stat of teh Pats VS Colts games this decade? Cause last time I check we had the edge. And in case you didnt know by you saying "we have won 4 out of teh 5 last five games" you are in fact living in teh past. In fact the very next day after the game was played it became the past so you too are living in the past my friend. so if we are both living in teh past why not tell the whole story instead of trying to be slick and only taling about teh last 5 games. You only want to talk about those 5 games because before that we had your number like no one else. so whats the over all stat?
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]
    Peyton Manning's career mark against the Patriots:
    5-9 regular season
    1-2 post season
    dating back to the 1998 season of course
    that 6-11 is a Cutleresque 35.3% win ratio
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More McDaniels : Hey Dog!!! We can say the same about your team not having the same weapons this coming season that you had during your 4 of 5  win run (e.g. harrison, rhoades, James, etc. I think we ALL SHOULD MOVE ON to today. As my man Tedy Bruschi says, "last year or ANY past year doesn't matter THIS YEAR"!!!!!!  TB has something to prove to the league and all of the cheap shot wannabes (like the clown who took out his knee last season) that 2007 was no fluke. I think he will lay waste to your boys and the rest of the NFL. BTW, when we FINALLY start playing your ponies in Foxboro again....maybe our streak will begin again.
    Posted by bradleyBliss[/QUOTE]

    Brad - Well said.  Yes this win loss thing does seem to occur in Home games more frequently. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    tas - I get you.  On a decade scale, yep - the pats come out on top (i'd imagine).  But that does not help my arguement and both the pats and colts have different players from even 5 years ago. 

    Actually, I have said the pats inability to win another SB is squarely related to their less effective defense, and when you look at the players I listed that are no longer there.  All but 2 are defensive players. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    Bolt - If we are abiding by Tas' comments then we are looking at Dungy Belichick/ Manning Brady years.  In those years, the colts are 3-3 reg season and 1-2 post.  

    But frankly, bolt it doesn't matter to me.  I am much more interested in recent numbers, because the colts are having more success against the pats recently.  That's why pats fans want to bring up the past before 2005 - thats when they won their games and superbowls.  Since then they have fallen short. 

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    It goes both ways Underdogg, you only want to talk about the last few years because now your team has the upper hand and we want to bring up the past because we used to own you guys so it goes both ways. In the end, over the last decade Bill Belichick has had the Colts number but more offton then not. But its getting close.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]I am not forgettting anything.  I am simply not living in the past.  I lived through the many years when the pats were the "hump" the colts could not get over, but that is ancient history.  The 4 of 5 streak is based on the last 5 games these teams have played against each other.   If you want to know the difference, here it is:  Those pat teams comprised NE greats like:  Harrison, Samuel, Law, Vrabel, Colvin, Dillon, Vinateri, McGinest, Milloy, Seau.  These players are no longer playing or no longer on the Pats.   
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Or, more accurately, he is living in that section of the past which shows his favorite team in its best light.

    You don't need to see their papers.
    These aren't the 'droids you're looking for.
    He can go about his business.
    Move along.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    And I said as much.  But I do happen to like the present better than the past.  

    By the way - did you know that Rome (NOT ITALY) actually once had an empire larger than the US.  Has anyone here gone to Rome and had the natives say we were once bigger than you silly americans?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]And I said as much.  But I do happen to like the present better than the past.   By the way - did you know that Rome (NOT ITALY) actually once had an empire larger than the US.  Has anyone here gone to Rome and had the natives say we were once bigger than you silly americans?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Well, no, but then again, that wasn't in the past decade. But you are right, you did already say that you are limiting the truth to that which looks best to you so why bother criticizing a rather uninspiring analogy.

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    I am sorry you don't care for my analogy.  Regardless, its application works in this situation.  

    Here's another - two weeks ago you might not have been a douchbag, but yesterday and today you are.  In my opinion, the thing that matters most is how you are most recently.  I'd ask you if that was a better analogy, but I don't really care. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]I am sorry you don't care for my analogy.  Regardless, its application works in this situation.   Here's another - two weeks ago you might not have been a douchbag, but yesterday and today you are.  In my opinion, the thing that matters most is how you are most recently.  I'd ask you if that was a better analogy, but I don't really care. 
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Oh, yes you care, my widdle Coltfan. If not, you would not post. Pleas see my other post where I ask for the original ud back. You are not even a good imitation. 

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

    Re: More McDaniels

    In Response to Re: More McDaniels:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More McDaniels : Oh, yes you care, my widdle Coltfan. If not, you would not post. Pleas see my other post where I ask for the original ud back. You are not even a good imitation. 
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]


    I pity you Root.  You define my comments as schoolyard stuff, but you have responded no less than three times with baby talk. 

    Don't forget the spell check.  If you use spelling as a weapon, its best to use it. 
     

Share