Calling out He Ban Me

[godef]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

 

[ATippett56]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads that the Colts are still #1. For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

It's called trolling, if you have not figured it out by now and the Colts clown should be banned from this message board.

 

[indycolts685]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

Anybody that says the Pats are not number one at this point don't know much about football..

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

Do what I do, put him on ignore.....

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

BTW, not sure if it's the same person, but "Ban Me" on Indystar is actually bragging about how the Colts are going to win the Super bowl with more starters lost to injury than the Pats did in '03. He's out of his mind, rooting for his team to be injured.....

http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213917&page=5

 

[PATSNUTme]

He's been dead to me for a long time. The only time I get to see his nonsense is when someone "quotes" him or in this case somone calling him out in a thread title. Starting a thread calling someone out is ususally frowned upon under the forum rules, but in this case it doesn't seem personal.

But a fast track to the Vistiing Locker Room flame forum could be in this threads future.

 

[patsox23]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

Well and thoroughly articulated.

 

[nowayback]

and why does anyone answer bans posts? if you dont answer...he goes away

 

[everlong]

I think he was just trying to get a rise out of board.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

.

Amazing and detailed write-up that clearly showed the differences!! Excellent.

To be honest, I don't care about rankings and focus only on how we do on the field. Are we on playing well enough to be on course to win the SB? That is all that matters for this year.

That said, it angers me a lot when the experts excuse the other team's poor showing due to 'injuries' and didn't bother giving us that slack when the same happened to us.

Again, I am least bit bothered if some expert has xyz team has #1 or 2 and us as #32. I am confident that we will prove it on the field when we play those teams. But the biased viewpoints of the experts is irritating me so much that I stopped browsing any sports site or NFL analysis on the tube unless it is mentioned in this forum.

This site is the only source for analysis and information for my beloved Pats and I plan to keep it that way for quite some time.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

He's been dead to me for a long time. The only time I get to see his nonsense is when someone "quotes" him or in this case somone calling him out in a thread title. Starting a thread calling someone out is ususally frowned upon under the forum rules, but in this case it doesn't seem personal.

But a fast track to the Vistiing Locker Room flame forum could be in this threads future.

Please don't move this thread!! Dumbos like me can rely on such an excellent writeup that proves how the Pats shut up and play irrespective of the injuries whereas other teams moan and groan.

Maybe the thread title can be edited to remove the name and avoid any breaking of the forum rules?

Thanks,

 

[godef]

Please don't move this thread!! Dumbos like me can rely on such an excellent writeup that proves how the Pats shut up and play irrespective of the injuries whereas other teams moan and groan.

Maybe the thread title can be edited to remove the name and avoid any breaking of the forum rules?

Thanks,

Don't think I broke any rules. Anything that He Ban Me finds insulting is strictly contained within his own point of view. I posted in the main forum because all his remarks are found in responses to other threads in the main room.

 

[shmessy]

Don't think I broke any rules. Anything that He Ban Me finds insulting is strictly contained within his own point of view. I posted in the main forum because all his remarks are found in responses to other threads in the main room.

I agree. After reviewing the play on the field, the original call stands. First down, Godef.

The point of contention is regarding the point of view.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

That may be the post of the year. Great and accurate post. Well written.

Not all Colts fans are like that. Ryan seems openminded. So does IndyColt, based on what I've seen so far. Anyway, LOVED THE POST. Right on the money.

 

[Tunescribe]

He Ban Me might be busy working with consultants and the Indianapolis Billboard Company on the new advertising campaign being developed for display on Peyton's forehead.

 

[He Ban Me]

Hey He Ban Me, how incredibly stubborn you are, insisting in various threads (this one in particular) that the Colts are still #1. Allow me to explain a few things to you.

You see, a few years ago the Patriots faced the Colts in the play-offs without two premier defenders at the time: Ty Law and Richard Seymour. Not to mention Tyrone Poole. The results? The Colts still could not win; the Pats held them to 3 measely points, totally dominated the 2nd half. Then they went on to win the championship in Pittsburgh, still without Law and Seymour.

During the regular season that same year, the Pats played stretches of games without their #1 receiver at the time, Deion Branch. How did they respond? They kept winning.

In fact, in 2003 and 2004, they Patriots broke records for "man games" lost due to injury while still managing winning records. And we're not talking about 9-7, we're talking about 14-2 each season. Including the longest winning streak in NFL history.

Last season in the AFCC, despite missing Rodney and Junior, and in a hostile stadium, we came up only a minute short of a return to the Super Bowl.

But now when the Colts lose some players to injuries, what happens to them? Besides all the whining, that is?

Sanders goes down last year, and suddenly the run defense SUCKS. The worse in NFL history.

They lose a couple of receivers this year, and suddenly Peyton Manning SUCKS. 6 interceptions IN ONE GAME!

Does a pattern begin to emerge here? On top of everything else, what makes the Patriots the better team is their DEPTH. On the other hand, the Colts have no DEPTH. We lose a few "key" players, but the machine rolls on; perhaps we lose a game, but we win many more. But the Colts, the flashy machine they are when they're healthy, if they lose a few key players, it all grinds to a screeching halt. Consecutive losses. The football world now sees what a fragile, shallow team the Colts really are.

Injuries are part of the game, get used to it. The better teams have the DEPTH to help absorb such injuries. Which makes the Patriots hands down the better team than the Colts. The Colts always wear down as the season goes on, starting their seasons undefeated, but crawling into the postseason. In contrast, the Patriots always gain steam as a season rolls on (which should really be scaring a few folks as this current season unfolds).

And two weeks ago, the Patriots marched into Indy, and despite the noise and the heat and the fouling officials, they beat the Colts. Yes, you're right, in a lot of ways, the Colts did beat themselves: by madly rushing Tom Brady and disrupting his game, they ultimately paid the price when they ran out of gas in the 4th quarter, at which time the Pats were able to assert their dominance. There's that depth thing again.

The Patriots are undisputed #1, not just because the Colts were riddled with injuries, but because they did not have the depth to cover for those injuries and defend their house (and eventually, their championship). For you to deny that the Pats are #1 is nothing but sheer obstinance.

Explain where in thayt thread did I state the Colts were number 1??

Trick question


The Patriots are.

 

[He Ban Me]

He Ban Me might be busy working with consultants and the Indianapolis Billboard Company on the new advertising campaign being developed for display on Peyton's forehead.

Nice!



That gets a triple!

 

[He Ban Me]

Please don't move this thread!! Dumbos like me can rely on such an excellent writeup that proves how the Pats shut up and play irrespective of the injuries whereas other teams moan and groan.

Maybe the thread title can be edited to remove the name and avoid any breaking of the forum rules?

Thanks,

No problem guys. It has already been made perfectly clear to me, IN WRITING, that the rules here are different for "Patsfans" versus opposing teams' fans.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

Alright, you couldn't have expected equal treatment as a troll, and a colts troll on a Patriots board no less.

 

[everlong]

No problem guys. It has already been made perfectly clear to me, IN WRITING, that the rules here are different for "Patsfans" versus opposing teams' fans.

Compared to IndyStar for Colts fans vs non Colts fans (especially Pats fans)?

While I took your post about the Pats to be a good natured jab you really cannot complain about your treatment here overall. You have good points on somethings but you're hardly the innocent bystander who never tries to stir the pot.