• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


21isSuperman last won the day on February 13

21isSuperman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,145 Hall of Famer


About 21isSuperman


  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

29,947 profile views
  1. Cavs are imploding...Dan Gilbert is such an awful owner.
  2. It's gotta be a hack. That's awful. Even as a hacker, why would you do something like that to someone ever, let alone at a time like this? Too much ugliness and stupidity in the world
  3. I dunno. Things are looking pretty tight out there. I don't think any team can beat them, but I think some teams can give them a good run for their money, maybe take them to 6 or 7 games. You have Minnesota who has stocked up tons of talent, Houston I can see either winning 55+ or being a total bust, San Antonio will always be in the running, OKC added Paul George and could add Rudy Gay. I'm not saying the Warriors will win or lose, but I think their competition has gotten much better
  4. I saw an interview where he was talking about himself during the production of their last album. Before their work started, he was very angry. His own words were "[expletive] the world". Then, after they got all the songs and everything, he completely changed. He was happy and full of love and life. I would have loved for the album to be cathartic for him, but I can't help but think the album was something he wanted to complete just to he could go in peace. Kind of like, he said his piece, put out his word and message through his music, and was finally at peace to go. I still haven't gotten over this.
  5. I agree. However, there are other factors to consider. For example, do you want to continue playing every week, keeping the same routine, or do you want to change that routine in the most important part of the year? I've heard Warren Sapp say that NFL players are creatures of habit. When you change that routine, whether it be a bye week or a Monday game or whatever, things simply don't feel right. And if you have the bye and rest your starters like the Colts did in 2009, it can lead to rust. You could go 3 weeks only seeing 30 mins of real football action at full game speed. I can't remember who the exact player was (I want to say Jeff Saturday?), but a Colts player said a big reason they won it all in 2006 was because they had to play in weeks 16 and 17 during the regular season. This forced them to keep the same routine and still continue to give it their all every week, so when the playoffs came around, it was like nothing had changed. While I agree that it's easier to go on a 3-game winning streak to win the Super Bowl rather than a 4-game winning streak, I think there's something to be said about continuity. I see what you're saying. That's a good point. I suppose the breakdowns of losses per round would help clarify that.
  6. I posted this in the NBA thread, but I'll say it here because you brought it up. I'm of the opinion that if Larry Bird didn't get injured, he would be in the GOAT conversation. I also consider him the ultimate basketball guy. He's the only person that I'm aware of in NBA history to win MVP, coach of the year, and executive of the year. He's not perfect by any means - his stubbornness with the Pacers led to their demise - but the guy simply understands basketball like few people ever. Interesting how Manning/Brady divides Boston and Indy while Larry Bird brings the two together Regarding your point about Denver, my main comparison between teams was the Colts with Peyton to the Pats with Brady. Elway built the Broncos very differently than what the Colts did, in the last couple of years at the very least. He put a huge emphasis on defense, which is what I would have liked to see Polian do with the Colts. Regarding your second point, I think that's how you build a complete team. When you have a guy like Manning or Brady as your quarterback, you can build a more complete team by investing those early round picks on the defensive side of the ball. Indy seemed to focus on a high-flying offense and surrounding Peyton with weapons whereas the Pats focused on defense. I think the Pats did a better job of building complete teams. No disagreements here. It's an interesting thought experiment. What if Brady had tons of first round picks surrounding him, but a lackluster defense? What if Peyton had undrafted receivers, but very strong defensive teams? Fun to think about
  7. Very well said. It would be interesting to see how the results vary for teams that play for physically than those with finesse, but I imagine it would be too difficult to calculate
  8. You make fair points, but I think it's still evidence that the Pats have generally had better teams and more complete rosters than the Colts. I know the Brady vs. Manning debate is one that will rage on forever, but I don't think many will debate the quality of rosters the two teams put out. It's certainly not the only or most substantial evidence, but I think it's contributing evidence to the argument that Brady has had more help than Peyton. Looking forward to seeing your response. However, I must put forth a rebuttal to some of your points. Regarding the bolded, I think it provides evidence to support my argument. The Pats had better quality backups. In other words, they had better quality talent on the roster than the Colts. That better quality talent on the roster allowed them to win, even when their HoF QB was out. The "ifs" and "buts" of "if Arizona made that field goal..." aren't really relevant. At the end of the day, the Pats won and went 3-1 without Brady. Whether they were close wins, comeback wins, or blowouts, they won. That's what I'm arguing here: the Pats have had better quality talent on their roster, making things easier for Brady. That doesn't mean Brady hasn't made a huge contribution, but that things have been slightly easier for him than they were for Peyton. Regarding the underline part, you're ignoring the huge changes involved. The Colts went 11-5 in the three years after Manning left. They also changed nearly the entire roster, entire coaching staff, starting QB, etc. 2012 was nearly a completely different team from 2011, let alone 2013 and 2014. Lastly, 2011 wasn't just an off year. It wasn't like the injury bug just bit the Colts hard and the ball didn't bounce our way. The entire team was a mess. The offense couldn't sustain a drive, the coaches couldn't gameplan to the (lacking) talent on the field, the defense was always on the field and getting picked apart at will. It's no surprise that there were so many changes from 2011 to 2012.
  9. Awful, just awful. I grew up a Linkin Park fan and I'm still a huge fan. I think Mike Shinoda is the most underrated person in all of music and Chester had a very unique and talented voice. This is absolutely terrible.
  10. I'd say Moncrief over Mewhort. I've already explained why I think the Colts should re-sign Moncrief (shameless plug), but I'd want to see if Mewhort can stay healthy all year long and over that knee injury from last year. If he has and it hasn't affected his play, then I'm all for bringing him back too. I don't anticipate the Colts bringing Davis back unless he has a stellar year. He's starting to get up there in age and we have some young DBs
  11. You make good points. However, I think you proved my point. While Cassel did have a 10 win season in 2010 and a Pro Bowl nod (though I did state why the Pro Bowl nod deserves an asterisk), I don't think anyone is going to call Cassel a Pro Bowl talent. Point being, while Cassel did well for one season in KC, he isn't that good of a QB. His surrounding units made him better. He's a product of the system. As you said, the 2007 Pats were an all-time great team, going 16-0. I've always maintained that the Pats have had more talented/complete teams than the Colts. My point was that Peyton did more with less
  12. Regarding your first point, I certainly understand. Brady has the team accomplishments, but he has the individual performances and numbers to show that he's been a big reason for those team accomplishments. Regarding the bolded, that's my point. If the Pats lose Brady, but their backups - and even 3rd stringers in Jacoby Brissett - can come in and play at a high level, what does that tell you about the state of the team around them? The coaches and talent around the quarterbacks helped elevate their play, so they must have done the same for Brady. Despite his Pro Bowl nod in 2010 (which he interestingly only got because Brady opted out of the Pro Bowl to have surgery), I don't think anyone would call Matt Cassel a Pro Bowl talent. If Cassel, Brissett, and Garoppolo can: 1) go a combined 14-6 2) throw for a total of 25 TDs to 11 INTs 3) throw for 4595 yards in 20 games (a respectable 230 ypg) 4) each have completion percentages over 60% then I think it suggests Brady has had a better unit around him, helping elevate his play and performances. Take Peyton off of the Colts and they go from 1 division title and 10 wins despite tons of injuries to the 1st overall pick. Take Brady off of the Pats and they go 14-6. To try again with the car analogy, taking Brady off of the Pats is like filling up a car with regular fuel instead of premium. It'll so go and get you from point A to point B with the regular fuel, but it performs better with the premium. But taking Manning off of the Colts is like taking the engine out of the car. Not to minimize Brady's contributions, but I'd say Peyton has had to do more with less overall.
  13. If history is any indication, Bell has about 2 more years of great performance before he begins to slow down. He has 4 more years of decent performance. Analytically thinking, the Steelers shouldn't give him a 5 year deal. I'd give him 3 or 4 years at the most. However, as a fan of the Colts, I hope they give him huge guaranteed money and a long term deal
  14. Just to keep the discussion going, I have a few problems with the reasoning of some voters. Brady is #1 because he's won so many games and Super Bowls, but those are team accomplishments, as we've discussed. Not only that, but Wade Phillips says the Pats haven't always had a great defense. That's true, but he's had more talent on that side of the ball, including Belichick > Dungy, than Manning. Another piece that we can discuss is how teams did in their absence. Brady misses a year with a knee injury and the Pats still win double-digits with Cassel. Brady misses 4 games with a suspension and the Pats go 3-1. Manning misses a year due to neck injuries and the Colts go from a championship contender to the worst team in the league. Thoughts?
  15. Just a fun side note, I think Sammy Baugh is one of Belichick's favourite players ever. He presented Sammy Baugh in the 2010 Greatest of All Time show the NFL Network put on. I think he called Baugh a combination of Ed Reed, Brian Moorman, and Tom Brady?

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.