Why Len....why?

[FSUPatsFan]

Pats fans how is Peyton a choker in big games did he not beat the Broncos twice and a very good Chiefs team also. Playoff games are big games no matter what team you play against. Only teams that have man handled us in the playoffs are the Pats and Jets.

Well, in our world, we define big games as Championship games..yes even AFC Championship games, which Peyton has been a part of...How did Peyton do in that game, I forgot?...If you would like to go back to his college days...Peyton NEVER won an SEC title, let alone a National Title, which Tennessee did win the year after he was drafted when they were led by the immortal Tee Martin...Oh, but Peyton did win the Citrus Bowl once...Peyton was the reason Steve Spurrier was inclined to say "You can't spell Citrus without UT"...Spurrier had every right to say that, though...After all, Peyton never beat him.

 

[Warhorse]

DaBruinz, so far you have not garnered any respect from me, matbe if you would read a post before replying you would understand what a person might be saying instead of just trying to beat an opposing fan into the ground with your senseless banter.

I know it's not called the "Ty Law rule." That's why it's in quotes in my posts, but that is how most fans refer to it. The rule was around way before Ty Law.

I don't care who they used in the presentation. I didn't see it. But do you think for one second that the NFL would show their Championship team bending the rules. I think not.

I don't care who it was mugging Pollard that year. We lost the game. I'm not making excuses. Dungy should have gone in at halftime and played within the referees scope of the game since that was how it turning.
The interceptions are very much a part of the same argument. Manning and the offense lost us that game and the defense held us in it until they ran out of steam. But the type of offense we play depends on those routes that were being messed with after the 5 yards. When it's not called by the refs then our gameplan should have changed.

My point though is a team should not have to gameplan for a referee's discrimination. The game should be called the same way all year. Teams have a hard enough time gameplanning for the opposing team.

My point about the "Tuck rule" and the "point of emphasis" is still the spot on. For some reason you think that because "99% of the examples used in the presentation were showing that of Miami Corners Sam Madison and Patrick Surtain," that the patriots weren't the primary reason behind the "point of emphasis." The Rams and the Panthers complained about it too but the only reason we are tied to it as being whiners is because Polian is on the competition committee. You talk about adapting to the environment and understanding the dynamic of human interaction, I think that defines a coach's job, but not the rules of the game. The rules are the rules. They are written down so they are the same for everybody. The referees are the enforcers of the rules, they are not the determination of set rules.

And I consider one sixth of the NFL that play indoors to be a significant number. The two teams, Indianapolis and Seattle, have the best records this year both play inside.

I don't know why you decided I was someone to jump on, but I guess you are entitled, just like every other egotistical blowhard who believes that since your team won, you have the right to squash anyone that you deem a naysayer to Patriot greatness.

 

[SamBam39]

get real

that's very naive.

the nfl rules are inforced by referees, who are human. Just like umpires in baseball, each team of officials has their own tendencies in calling a game, much like each umpire has his own interpretation of the strike zone. All players and fans know this. A good veteran pitcher will quickly adapt his approach to the way an umpire is giving him calls that day. It routine. The same is true for referees making penalty calls in football. You can quickly determine if they are calling a tight game and nailing you for every little ticky-tack touch that goes on, or if they are letting the boys play and not calling very much at all. That is also routine. The Colts simply needed to see that they were letting most things go and become more physical themselves and play the game, rather than getting their asses beat on for an entire game and then balming their loss on the refs and crying to the media and the league about it. They not only choked when it was all on the line, they were total p***ys about it. I can tell you Belichick wouldn't have allowed his team to do either - get their asses handed to them because of perceived non-calls, or make classless fools of themselves to the media. He would've coached them to get more physical immediately in response to the refs.
Hence, why the colts are still trying to win a title instead of having done it three times already.

 

[Warhorse]

Yes, yes. I've already stated that Dungy should have changed his gameplan. And yes I know that the coach must interpret the tendencies of a referee. My point is if the rule is on the book, it's the referee's job to uphold it. If it says five yards in the rulebook then it should be five yards. There is a big difference in battling with the receiver five yards off the LOS, than battling 7 yards off the LOS.

The Colts felt they were slighted. I don't blame them for complaining about it. And if wasn't such a big deal, then why did the "point of emphasis" come around the next year? But the primary reason the Colts are held to the "point of emphasis" is because Polian is on the comp committee. There were alot of teams complaining about the rule, but because we were seen doing it, we're the one who get the grief over it. Most teams don't even mention the stuff to the media, their coplaints just go to the NFL front office and are talked about in the committee. Some of you are notorious in hating Manning for the way he plays the game, but if someone brings up Brady and his "disrespect speech", then Brady was right for calling everyone out. I didn't count the Patriots out at midseason, I said on this very board that the only competition the Patriots had for the division was Miami and that they had to beat them to take the division. I think they have the whole team concept down to an art. To me though, that's not what I look for. I like the Colts for their individuality in playing as a team.

 

[kptmorgan04]

Did you see the Seahawks and Cardinals game? Manning is the coordinator, and a mighty good one at that.

was really good against san diego when he should have run the ball to position the team for a field goal at the end of the game... but we all know how that one ended up.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Did I just see Colts and ref used in the same post?

 

[DaBruinz]

DaBruinz, so far you have not garnered any respect from me, matbe if you would read a post before replying you would understand what a person might be saying instead of just trying to beat an opposing fan into the ground with your senseless banter.

Warhorse -
Maybe you should think before you type. It would make you a much better poster. From what I have seen, if its senseless banter you want, you only have to look in the mirror. I could care less if I have your respect. You've done nothing on the board to garner anyone's respect yourself. So, get off your holier than thou high horse.

I know it's not called the "Ty Law rule." That's why it's in quotes in my posts, but that is how most fans refer to it. The rule was around way before Ty Law.

Only ignorant Colts fans refer to it as the "Ty Law Rule." I know hundreds of fans out here in Cali and most refer to it as the 5 Yard Chuck rule. They don't refer to it as the "Ty Law Rule." So, can you stop your lying now?

I don't care who they used in the presentation. I didn't see it. But do you think for one second that the NFL would show their Championship team bending the rules. I think not.

A sure sign of ignorance. You'd rather ignore the truth than deal with reality. And yes, I would expect it since it was the competition committee and was led by Bill Polian and Tony Dungy.

I don't care who it was mugging Pollard that year. We lost the game. I'm not making excuses. Dungy should have gone in at halftime and played within the referees scope of the game since that was how it turning.

Another sign of ignorance. Another sign that you can't deal with reality.

The interceptions are very much a part of the same argument. Manning and the offense lost us that game and the defense held us in it until they ran out of steam. But the type of offense we play depends on those routes that were being messed with after the 5 yards. When it's not called by the refs then our gameplan should have changed.

More proof of your ignorance. The Interceptions are NOT part of the same argument. Why? Because the holding that occurred happened LONG after the interceptions occurred. The interceptions occurred while the Pats were in Zone coverage and, at WORST, jammed the receivers at the line. On the throws that led to the interceptions, the receivers were not interferred with in any way shape or form. Maybe you should watch the game before showing your ignorance to everyone.

My point though is a team should not have to gameplan for a referee's discrimination. The game should be called the same way all year. Teams have a hard enough time gameplanning for the opposing team.

You have no point. You only have your ignorance. Especially if you believe that referees are infallible people who don't make mistakes. Or if you believe that referees can be 100% consistent. NOTHING is perfect nor 100% consistent.

My point about the "Tuck rule" and the "point of emphasis" is still the spot on. For some reason you think that because "99% of the examples used in the presentation were showing that of Miami Corners Sam Madison and Patrick Surtain," that the patriots weren't the primary reason behind the "point of emphasis." The Rams and the Panthers complained about it too but the only reason we are tied to it as being whiners is because Polian is on the competition committee. You talk about adapting to the environment and understanding the dynamic of human interaction, I think that defines a coach's job, but not the rules of the game. The rules are the rules. They are written down so they are the same for everybody. The referees are the enforcers of the rules, they are not the determination of set rules.

Your point about the "Tuck Rule" and the Point of Emphasis was bogus then as it is now. They are two entirely different situations. But, you've already shown your ignorance with so many things that its obvious you are just sitting there with "your fingers in your ears saying 'I'm right and you're wrong and I am not going to listen to you.'"

I think its frigging hilarious that you can sit there and say that the rules are the same for everyone when your QB gets coddled the way he does. I have seen Manning get away with countless false starts and delay of game penalties, then WHINE like a baby the few times he does get called. I have seen him go up to referees and try to tell them to make sure their crews are on the ball because the Colts are going to run their 2 minute drill and they don't want to be slowed down by the officiating crew. I'm sorry, but that is totally disrespectful to the officiating crews.

And I consider one sixth of the NFL that play indoors to be a significant number. The two teams, Indianapolis and Seattle, have the best records this year both play inside.

What you think and $1000 will get you a SB ticket.

I don't care what you consider SIGNIFICANT. You've shown that what you think isn't rational. And it was pointed out to you that the Houston and Seattle Domes aren't the same as the ones that the Vikings, Saints, Lions, and Colts play in.

Also, would you care to offer up how many of Seattle's games they actually had the roof closed for? Or how many of Houston's games the roof was closed for? My guess that you won't because it tears apart your argument.

BTW, How many DOME teams have won the SB? I think its 1. The 2000 St. Louis Rams. Not a very good number all things considered. So, the fact that the top 2 teams this year were "DOME" teams means absolutely nothing.

I don't know why you decided I was someone to jump on, but I guess you are entitled, just like every other egotistical blowhard who believes that since your team won, you have the right to squash anyone that you deem a naysayer to Patriot greatness.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that somoeone as ignorant as yourself, Warhorse, can't figure out why I chose to tear apart your points. How about just the fact that you weren't living in reality with your arguments? How about the fact that you blatantly ignored the truth of the situations to try and take jabs at the Patriots?

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with you. The fact that you regularly attempt to belittle the Patriots and try to act like Manning is some great player who's garbage doesn't stink.

 

[SamBam39]

Yes, yes. I've already stated that Dungy should have changed his gameplan. And yes I know that the coach must interpret the tendencies of a referee. My point is if the rule is on the book, it's the referee's job to uphold it. If it says five yards in the rulebook then it should be five yards. There is a big difference in battling with the receiver five yards off the LOS, than battling 7 yards off the LOS.

The Colts felt they were slighted. I don't blame them for complaining about it. And if wasn't such a big deal, then why did the "point of emphasis" come around the next year? But the primary reason the Colts are held to the "point of emphasis" is because Polian is on the comp committee. There were alot of teams complaining about the rule, but because we were seen doing it, we're the one who get the grief over it. Most teams don't even mention the stuff to the media, their coplaints just go to the NFL front office and are talked about in the committee. Some of you are notorious in hating Manning for the way he plays the game, but if someone brings up Brady and his "disrespect speech", then Brady was right for calling everyone out. I didn't count the Patriots out at midseason, I said on this very board that the only competition the Patriots had for the division was Miami and that they had to beat them to take the division. I think they have the whole team concept down to an art. To me though, that's not what I look for. I like the Colts for their individuality in playing as a team.

your saying you understand, and then trying to make your claim despite the point! if the point is that all umpires and referees call 'the rules' a little differently, and that is generally understood, then you can't turn around and say 'a rule is a rule' as the basis for your argument that the colts were treated unfairly! the refs called the game a certain way, like they always do.
on almost any nfl play you could call holding, or pushing off, or interference.
technically a defensive back is not supposed to even touch a receiver, but they do on almost any play you watch. it doesn't come down to how a rule is written - it comes down to how a rule is enforced that day - maybe you should go tell dungy, manning, and polian that and let them think about that for awhile by themselves. maybe a light bulb will go off and you'll actually have a chance to get past all this and figure out what you need to do. This is really really basic stuff by the way. this isn't new or some theory. It's nothing more than what any fan witnesses every weekend.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, yes. I've already stated that Dungy should have changed his gameplan. And yes I know that the coach must interpret the tendencies of a referee. My point is if the rule is on the book, it's the referee's job to uphold it. If it says five yards in the rulebook then it should be five yards. There is a big difference in battling with the receiver five yards off the LOS, than battling 7 yards off the LOS.

As was pointed out in the discussions regarding the rule, an official 20 yards away would find it hard to tell the difference between 5 and 7 yards in a split second. And that is what you are having problems understanding.

The Colts felt they were slighted. I don't blame them for complaining about it. And if wasn't such a big deal, then why did the "point of emphasis" come around the next year? But the primary reason the Colts are held to the "point of emphasis" is because Polian is on the comp committee. There were alot of teams complaining about the rule, but because we were seen doing it, we're the one who get the grief over it. Most teams don't even mention the stuff to the media, their coplaints just go to the NFL front office and are talked about in the committee. Some of you are notorious in hating Manning for the way he plays the game, but if someone brings up Brady and his "disrespect speech", then Brady was right for calling everyone out. I didn't count the Patriots out at midseason, I said on this very board that the only competition the Patriots had for the division was Miami and that they had to beat them to take the division. I think they have the whole team concept down to an art. To me though, that's not what I look for. I like the Colts for their individuality in playing as a team.

There weren't "ALOT OF TEAMS COMPLAINING" There were 3 or 4. One of which was the team whose GM happened to be the head of the Competition Committee. That the reason why it got put on the agenda. Period. But, you don't want to admit that, do you?

People rag on Manning because he is a Pretty boy who thinks that the rules should be tailored to exclude him. People rag on Manning because he's an egotisitcal prig who thinks that he is special and better than everyone else. People rag on Manning because he thinks he is smarter than his coaches and the other team's coaches, yet, time and again, its been proven that he's not.

People rag on Manning because he's accomplished relatively nothing while having a Top O-line, Top WRs, and one of the best running games around. Yes, he's had a mediocre defense, but if Manning truly knew how to manage a clock, he'd chew up time with the running game. Last year, he was all high on himself to break Marino's records.

People rag on Manning because they see Manning for what he really is. A self-centered egotistical prig who cares more about personal accolades than he does winning the title. It was so apropos when he did the NFL Network Fantasy Football league commercial that had him holding up the little football trophy with Manning saying "This is what I play for."

 

[Warhorse]

First off, I stated that Manning and the offense lost us that game; the coach can be lumped in with them. I never stated that the refs made us lose that game. I stated that Dungy should have changed his gameplan when we were still in the game at halftime.

In response to DaBruinz, yeah whatever. I know I'm on a Patriots board but most of the fans here don't have the need to tear another poster down by breaking down only part of their argument. As I said before, you garner no respect from me, so you won't get anymore replies either.

SamBam39 - I am not trying to go both ways on my argument. I did say that there is some discretion to a refs call, but I also said that I believe that when a rule is called, it should be called all year the same way. The NFL is notorious for "letting them just play" during the playoffs. I am just disagreeing with this philosophy. That same philosophy is why I can't watch playoff hockey.

 

[Pats_Bryan]

People rag on Manning because they see Manning for what he really is. A self-centered egotistical prig who cares more about personal accolades than he does winning the title. It was so apropos when he did the NFL Network Fantasy Football league commercial that had him holding up the little football trophy with Manning saying "This is what I play for."

Wow! While I agree with the sentiment, that's a lot harsher than I would have been, just because I'm a laid-back, non-confrantational sort of dude. I would ammend one part of the final paragraph. I think Manning does want to win a title, but he may not realize that compiling personal accolades is not the way to do it!

 

[DaBruinz]

In response to DaBruinz, yeah whatever. I know I'm on a Patriots board but most of the fans here don't have the need to tear another poster down by breaking down only part of their argument. As I said before, you garner no respect from me, so you won't get anymore replies either.

You're breaking my heart, Warhorse. BTW, I broke down your entire argument. I'm sorry that it escapes you. If you felt torn down, because someone pointed out the ignorance of your posting and the facts that you ignored, then the issue is your own.

As for whether or not I garner your respect, you haven't given anyone reason to respect you. You've purposely gone out of your way to ignore salient facts and have admitted that you don't care about them. You act just like Manning does.