Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Pats Fan in Indy, Aug 23, 2009.
THIS IS WHY
just an fyi, I'm being more sarcastic than I could possibly be...
Lotsa people expecting the demise of the Colts. Indy has always scared me more than Pitt, and I see no reason for that to change this year.
That video is ridiculous. And the Colt fans obsessing over it are ridiculous. But, the fact remains that Manning is THE one player I fear the most as a NE fan.
Manning looked like he wants to eat the league in that shot. I really don't know how anyone can predict the demise of that team as long as he's taking snaps. They'll be tough to beat this year, no matter what the "experts" on here believe.
Goober's good, but his commercials scare me more than his football play.....
Looks alittle constipated to me.
Why they don't scare me...too many years of seeing
They're always scary in the regular season. Then in the postseason they lose in the first round to a team they beat in the regular season. #18, who I call "old 7-and-8" for his career postseason record, always finds a way to be un-clutch.
I still think the Colts are on the decline. They should have been between 8-10 wins last year and found a way to win games they had no business winning. You can't do that year in and year out no matter who they are. Either they will get better this season or the breaks that were there last year probably won't break their way again this year (Sage Rosenfels helicopter move in a guaranteed win, several games won on fumbles returned for TDs, etc.).
I swear his forehead gets bigger every season.
LMFAO....the guy is trying way too hard with that one.
No disrespect, but you could say the same thing about quite a few of the Patriots teams prior to '07.
You can say that about the 2001 team and they regressed in 2002 to a 9-7 non-playoff team. Other than that, you can't say that about any season other than maybe one or two games. The Colts had 4-5 games where they should have lost and won. I can only think of one Pats season that fits that category and it proved my point.
The Colts don't scare me. It's more like i'm scared of the referees giving biased officiating to the Colts. I mean we know Bill Polian is head of the rules committee. Patriots were robbed in the 2006 AFC Championship game against the Colts because of the biased officiating. It's really the Colts who are the scared ones. If they weren't scared they wouldn't need to change the rules and they get all the calls go in their favor. They know how good of a head coach Belichick is. He always had Manning's number for years until the Colts had to change the rules after the 2003 season putting more emphasis on the DB's and defensive pass interference. After that it seemed like the referees were giving favorable officiating to the Colts
Again, no disrespect. However, I feel you're wrong in your assertion about the 2001 team being the only Pats team that fits whatever category this conversation belongs to. There were quite a few games, namely the Browns and Titans games in 2003, that the Pats easily could have lost (and more that escape me at the moment). The Pats beat the Titans on an overtime pick-six by Law. They beat the Brown, who were driving for a possible go-ahead score to win the game, with a late-game Law interception.
I'm not trying to start a war of any kind with you. I'm merely pointing out that almost every team wins a handful of games they should probably not win in any given year, including the Patriots. Heck, even the 2007 squad should have lost a few games, namely the Ravens game where an ill-advised TO call by some member of the coaching staff that, by rule, isn't even allowed to call a TO negated a 4th and inches stop by that incredible defense that gave the Pats life.
In the end, the games are won and lost on the field. We'll see where the Colts are when the dust settles. Whether they're good or bad, they always give the Patriots a tough game (kinda like the Dolphins).
My thought exactly.
We'll never have to worry about them as long as the Chargers play them in an early round
I beleive you are correct. It has happened before to playes.
Could steroids have made Barry Bonds' head grow in size? - By Michelle Tsai - Slate Magazine
In an adult, very large doses of HGH can cause the skull to thicken and the forehead and eyebrow ridge to become especially prominent.
As long as Tom Brady respects Peyton Manning so much, who are we to disagree?
Who are you going to belive, what someone else says or your eyes?
The Horseshoes go 9-7 this year and end up on the playoff fringe outside looking in like the Pats last year.
Caldwell is an abysmal coach. The Colts demise is here. It's OVAH for them!!!
That being said, I'm a Donald Brown fan.
Remember that DirectTV ad from a couple years ago where Peyton audibles during a 28-3 blowout of the Titans, with 2 minutes left, changes a running play to a passing play? I was wondering if there'd be any criticism if Brady had made that commercial after the 2007 season. Manning just loved rubbing it in during that commercial.
Never mind the Oreo cookie licking Manning commercial. If Brady had done that, he would have never heard the end of it.
Good call regarding that commercial. In every Brady-Manning debate I've seen on this board, the "Brady padded his stats by running up the score, Manning never did" argument is always used.
I guess they blocked out that ad campaign featuring Manning running up the score - "I have to run. Actually, I think I'll pass."
I am afraid it doesnt matter the coaches coaching skill. Hes proven hes as bold as a command on your favorite message board by cutting thy great Adam Seward. This alone is enough to send shivers down thy mortals spine.
First, in 2003, the Pats dominated with defense. That means they won a lot of close games, but it doesn't mean they weren't in control. You mentioned only two for 2003, not 4-5 as I said the Colts won in that fashion last year. And the two you mentioned don't even qualify.
First you got your game information wrong about the Titans game because it never went into overtime and the Pats were in the lead when Law made the pick. The Pats were winning 31-30 when Ty Law got the INT for a TD that sealed the game and the Pats score on each of their last five drives. The Titans had gotten up to an early lead, but the momentum had already begun to shift into the Pats direction starting in the third quarter.
And the Cleveland game, the Pats were leading from the third quarter 6-3 and never relinquished the lead. The Browns were intercepted on their last play of the game, but it was a drive that they had only gained 12 yards and hadn't even crossed the 50. That isn't what I call a game winning drive especially since the Browns had one successful drive in 10 possessions. That is a case of the Pats dominating the game on defense. Neither are cases like the Colts last year where they were losing for most or all of the game and one play changed their fortunes.
The Pats were dominant in 2003 and controlled a lot of close games. It is absolutely nothing like what the Colts did where they either were getting beat or struggled most of the game only to have one or two plays change their fortune.
Sorry, but no one would agree with you with your examples especially the specific games you stated. Actually, the only game that season I might put in that category is the Colts game where the Pats stopped the Colts at the goal line at the last play of the game for a go ahead score, but the Pats dominated most of that game and allowed the Colts back into the game and still stopped them on multiple goalline attempts to win. The Colts had a first and goal at the one and ended up turning over the ball on downs on that last drive. So the Pats made four straight goalline stops to win the game. That is more than one play changing the fortunes.
Again, you are giving examples of one or two games in a season. That happens to a lot of teams. The Colts had 4-5 games like that which is a fluke and is tough to reproduce year after year. One or two games, maybe. Four to five, near impossible.
As long as Manning is the QB, the Colts will keep winning.
The NFL is a QB driven league and he is one of the best of all time.
Without a decent, not neccessarily good LT (which the Colts look like they may be missing), even the best QBs will struggle. Besides, Manning guaratees them that they will have a shot to be over .500. It doesn't guarantee them that they are going to be a Super Bowl or playoff contender. Football isn't basketball where one player can make the difference between a lottery team and Championship contender. Neither Brady nor Manning could make their respective teams playoff contenders without at least a decent amount of talent around them on either side of the ball.
It's hard to say this without knowing either guy, but one of the reasons that Brady and Manning get along so well may be that they are each driven by the desire to win at any reasonable cost and so understand each other very well. Though, I do think that particular video clip is the result of the cameraman being right in Peyton's face for a long time as he was stretching. Hard not to stare down a guy doing that.
I am with you brother.I agree with most of what you said, but then again, I never said "winning" meant bowls or even playoff wins.
In the NFL an above average QB can make an average team a winning record. However a super bowl calibre team with an average QB is lucky to get a winning record unless you are the Ravens of a few years ago. .
Well if you look at the last ten years, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Eli Manning have all gotten rings. I wouldn't start a team round any of these guys in their prime. Eli is the best of the three and I would call him very average to slightly above average.
Separate names with a comma.