The rivalry is back on

[NannyMcafee]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/533517002

 

will colts fans boo McDaniels as he walks into the field? I didn’t realize the colts only had one prime time game. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

I believe the game is in Foxboro so I doubt the boos from Colts fans will be that noticeable. The NFL missed a good opportunity by leaving this game in New England. 

[ColtsGermany]

By the way.... That sentence by CB is printed on my newest training shirt. 

Motivates me 

But why boo at him? We have to be glad that he backed out. He wasn't in to it with all of his heart. 

[TKnight24]

Not a rivalry when one team is 5-0 against the other 

 

I’m just hoping not to lose by 30+ this time around. 

 

[DaveA1102]

I think the best thing we need to do with McDaniels is move on, don't boo, don't make a big deal of him, just focus on the rivalry between the teams, which has always been there but this situation has brought it back to the fore.

 

For me, McDaniels deserves none of our time or efforts.  He is a twerp (for the want of a more apt description, that may get me banned).

[IinD]

34 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Not a rivalry when one team is 5-0 against the other 

 

I’m just hoping not to lose by 30+ this time around. 

 

Yeah I'm just hoping it doesn't look like the last few times against them. 

 

We've looked like a JV team against them. 

[jskinnz]

59 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I believe the game is in Foxboro so I doubt the boos from Colts fans will be that noticeable. The NFL missed a good opportunity by leaving this game in New England. 

 

What choice did they have but to leave it in New England?

[Nadine]

Not really a fair match up and they make it a Thursday game too.  I scratched my head on this one until I remembered McDaniels.  sigh

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DaveA1102 said:

I think the best thing we need to do with McDaniels is move on, don't boo, don't make a big deal of him, just focus on the rivalry between the teams, which has always been there but this situation has brought it back to the fore.

 

For me, McDaniels deserves none of our time or efforts.  He is a twerp (for the want of a more apt description, that may get me banned).

I disagree.   If this game was in Indy, I would hope the fans boo him like crazy.   It's part of the fun.   However, at this point in time, he would probably come out on the winning side. 

[Deadpool]

50 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Not really a fair match up and they make it a Thursday game too.  I scratched my head on this one until I remembered McDaniels.  sigh

That is the only reason it is a prime time game. Because of the McDaniels situation. If that didn't happen, I bet the game would have been a 1 PM Sunday afternoon game. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

What choice did they have but to leave it in New England?

 The NFL could have adjusted the schedule so that the game was in Indianapolis. A few changes could have put it where the game was played here. This would have created more "drama" with McDaniels having to come to Indianapolis. More drama would mean more opportunity to make $$$ through merchandise (t-shirts, visors, vodoo dolls, etc). It also would have drove ticket prices up. From about week 3 on last year you could get seats dirt cheap for the Colts. By the end of the year I believe I saw tickets as low as $5. That means more money for the NFL and one thing we know about the NFL is that they are all about making money.

[jskinnz]

16 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 The NFL could have adjusted the schedule so that the game was in Indianapolis. A few changes could have put it where the game was played here. This would have created more "drama" with McDaniels having to come to Indianapolis. More drama would mean more opportunity to make $$$ through merchandise (t-shirts, visors, vodoo dolls, etc). It also would have drove ticket prices up. From about week 3 on last year you could get seats dirt cheap for the Colts. By the end of the year I believe I saw tickets as low as $5. That means more money for the NFL and one thing we know about the NFL is that they are all about making money.

 

Yeah, not a lot right with that post.  

 

Really. Bad. Idea.

[dodsworth]

Ummmmm, we need to go tit for tat in wins in order for it to be a rivalry.

Even during Manning's prime it wasn't much of a rivalry.

 

Let's win a game or two against them first before we call it a rivalry.

[deedub75]

18 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Yeah, not a lot right with that post.  

 

Really. Bad. Idea.

 

Yes!  Let's throw out fair and balanced scheduling and schedule games based on drama.  Sounds good, right?

[Myles]

18 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

 

Yes!  Let's throw out fair and balanced scheduling and schedule games based on drama.  Sounds good, right?

I partially agree.   One thing I like about the NFL is that in any 4 years span, all teams had a comparable schedule. 

 

Now if there was an option to swap a couple games and have this one in Indy, it would have been a good idea.   My guess is that it would not have been easy or possible.   The scheduling is not an easy thing to do.  8 home, 8 road games.  They have set teams they have to make fit for everyone.  

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Deadpool said:

That is the only reason it is a prime time game. Because of the McDaniels situation. If that didn't happen, I bet the game would have been a 1 PM Sunday afternoon game. 

I'm not to sure about that.   The NFL has been putting crappy games on Thursday Nights for years.  

[csmopar]

39 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

Ummmmm, we need to go tit for tat in wins in order for it to be a rivalry.

Even during Manning's prime it wasn't much of a rivalry.

 

Let's win a game or two against them first before we call it a rivalry.

I disagree. Those teams were  just like the Pacers/Knicks rivalry of the 1990s. Battles every game. We won 4 out 6 in Manning's prime, 1-2 in the playoffs against them though. Now the early manning years, yeah we lost 4 straight to them. But after that, those match ups were essentially toss ups.  And most of the times when we played them during the manning era was in New England.  Where few teams go and win.

[jskinnz]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I partially agree.   One thing I like about the NFL is that in any 4 years span, all teams had a comparable schedule. 

 

Now if there was an option to swap a couple games and have this one in Indy, it would have been a good idea.   My guess is that it would not have been easy or possible.   The scheduling is not an easy thing to do.  8 home, 8 road games.  They have set teams they have to make fit for everyone.  

 

1) It is not logistically possible without impacting pretty much the schedule for every other team in the league.

2) Why does anyone think the league should care to have this game in Indy with really the sole reason being giving Indy fans a chance to boo McDaniels?  I would think the NFL has more important things to worry about.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 The NFL could have adjusted the schedule so that the game was in Indianapolis. A few changes could have put it where the game was played here. This would have created more "drama" with McDaniels having to come to Indianapolis. More drama would mean more opportunity to make $$$ through merchandise (t-shirts, visors, vodoo dolls, etc). It also would have drove ticket prices up. From about week 3 on last year you could get seats dirt cheap for the Colts. By the end of the year I believe I saw tickets as low as $5. That means more money for the NFL and one thing we know about the NFL is that they are all about making money.

 

Opponents & home/away matchups are set well in advance, our 2019 home/away matchups are already determined.

 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

54 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Yeah, not a lot right with that post.  

 

Really. Bad. Idea.

 

What makes it a bad idea? What was wrong with the post? Just curious.

36 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

 

Yes!  Let's throw out fair and balanced scheduling and schedule games based on drama.  Sounds good, right?

 I'm not saying give the Colts 9 home games and give the Pats 7 home games. All that had to be done was to keep the same AFC South vs AFC East schedule that we played in 2015. Play at Buffalo and Miami and have New England and the Jets come to Lucas Oil. Granted it wouldn't keep with the tradition of swapping every 3 years but really how many fans would be upset if Buffalo didn't come to town this year? It isn't as hard as it is being made out to be. 

 

6 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Opponents & home/away matchups are set well in advance, our 2019 home/away matchups are already determined.

 

 

You can determine the locations for all but 2 games per year from now until infinity and those 2 games are based on where you finished in the division the previous season. 

[Swan Ronson]

A rivalry doesn't have to be between evenly matched teams. 

[Myles]

20 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

What makes it a bad idea? What was wrong with the post? Just curious.

 I'm not saying give the Colts 9 home games and give the Pats 7 home games. All that had to be done was to keep the same AFC South vs AFC East schedule that we played in 2015. Play at Buffalo and Miami and have New England and the Jets come to Lucas Oil. Granted it wouldn't keep with the tradition of swapping every 3 years but really how many fans would be upset if Buffalo didn't come to town this year? It isn't as hard as it is being made out to be. 

 

 

You really think flipping the schedule around is worth it to have a game in Indy?    That would be really dumb.    The NFL has a system and they should stick with it.   The only variables should be when the game is played.  

I was happy to see that the game isn't following a Pats bye week.

[Reality Check]

Speaking on behalf of myself & many other NE fans I know, I have not heard one NE fan who considers "Colts vs Pats" a current NFL rivalry....based on the results of the past 5 yrs.

 

As a matter of fact, this particular Thursday night game is being welcomed by NE fans from the standpoint that they drew "an easy matchup" for their mandatory Thursday game and it will leave them with 10 days to prepare for a primetime matchup vs. the Chiefs.

 

 

[buccolts]

It's not over, 'til we say it's over.

[chad72]

The Pats ' difficult stretch is vs Vikings, at Dolphins followed by at Steelers, IMO.

[dgambill]

The Colts/Pats rivalry is akin to that between an 18 wheeler and possum. The fact that it is a Thursday night game is pretty absurd. It will be a media hype but I don't think either team has any extra hate or motivation. Outside NE's divisional games I don't think they have a rival. Peyton led teams were the only ones in the AFC that gave them any trouble at all. There aren't anymore so they sit at the top alone. The rest of the league can throw stones at the mountain but they will just break themselves against it. Until a team is in the others way of going to the SB or consistently winning their division I don't see it as a rivalry. Just because Ballard used the phrase (I fully believe at the behest of Jimmy Irsay) doesn't change a thing. Only after a few years of us playing some meaningful games will anything change. In the owners minds maybe...I still think Robert Kraft gets great delight at beating us but for the player or avg fan....its just another sunday matchup.

[Pelt]

18 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Speaking on behalf of myself & many other NE fans I know, I have not heard one NE fan who considers "Colts vs Pats" a current NFL rivalry....based on the results of the past 5 yrs.

 

As a matter of fact, this particular Thursday night game is being welcomed by NE fans from the standpoint that they drew "an easy matchup" for their mandatory Thursday game and it will leave them with 10 days to prepare for a primetime matchup vs. the Chiefs.

 

 

This. 

 

Hasn't been a rivalry since Manning left.

 

You kinda have to beat the other team from time to time.

[GwinnettColt]

I'm predicting a lot of Josh "Manboy" McDaniels closeups on the screen. 

 

Yeah, I can only think of one game that was remotely close was the fake punt game.  Other than that, it's been very one-sided.

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

I was a big proponent of Josh McDaniels and I think if/when he becomes a head coach he will be a good one.

 

That being said, I think as Colts fans we should thank him because I think Reich will be a even better coach and the Colts are lucky to have him... again.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

41 minutes ago, Myles said:

You really think flipping the schedule around is worth it to have a game in Indy?    That would be really dumb.    The NFL has a system and they should stick with it.   The only variables should be when the game is played.  

I was happy to see that the game isn't following a Pats bye week.

Why would it be dumb to make more money and make the game more interesting? And if you go back to my original post, I never said the NFL should switch the schedule. I just said they missed out on a good opportunity by leaving the game in New England. What is the big deal with keeping the system as is?

 

I really don't understand why people on this forum can't learn to disagree with others without saying that what someone else has said is "dumb". What is gained by that? If you disagree give your reasoning for why. My entire point was that the NFL missed an opportunity by leaving this game in New England instead of Indianapolis. For a league that has seen declining ratings over the last couple of seasons and a sport that is seeing declining participation nationwide, I would think it would be SMART to make each and every game as interesting as possible. I don't think anyone can deny that this game would have much more appeal to it if the Patriots and Josh McDaniels had to come here. At no point did I call for the schedule to be changed. I did offer a scenario on how it could be done by simply keeping the matchups that we played in 2015 when we played the AFC East. Times and ways of doing things change. From 1966 to 1990 the NFL didn't have bye weeks, the schedule used to be 10 games long, the league used to be smaller, and on and on. Change happens all the time that's why I don't see it as such a huge deal to do something different from the "norm".

 

Please don't think that I really care this much about one game on the NFL schedule. My point was and still is that the NFL missed out on a good opportunity by not having this particular game in Indy. I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just giving my reasoning as to why I feel this way. I love debate and discussion and love coming here to the forum. I do think it would be great if we could learn to disagree without calling the ideas and thoughts of others "dumb". If you disagree with me that's fine but give me more than that's "dumb" or a "bad idea". My apologies for the manifesto.

[Reality Check]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I was a big proponent of Josh McDaniels and I think if/when he becomes a head coach he will be a good one.

 

That being said, I think as Colts fans we should thank him because I think Reich will be a even better coach and the Colts are lucky to have him... again.

Agreed.

 

Although there is great disdain for McD from may Colts fans, I have always believed that Reich will be the better HC....especially for the Colts.

 

Who knows, given the off-season fallout from their SB loss, maybe the Pats will be vulnerable this year?...and the Colts could beat them?  This would definitely lend some credibility to the idea of a rivalry IMO.

[Coffeedrinker]

5 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Why would it be dumb to make more money and make the game more interesting? And if you go back to my original post, I never said the NFL should switch the schedule. I just said they missed out on a good opportunity by leaving the game in New England. What is the big deal with keeping the system as is?

 

I really don't understand why people on this forum can't learn to disagree with others without saying that what someone else has said is "dumb". What is gained by that? If you disagree give your reasoning for why. My entire point was that the NFL missed an opportunity by leaving this game in New England instead of Indianapolis. For a league that has seen declining ratings over the last couple of seasons and a sport that is seeing declining participation nationwide, I would think it would be SMART to make each and every game as interesting as possible. I don't think anyone can deny that this game would have much more appeal to it if the Patriots and Josh McDaniels had to come here. At no point did I call for the schedule to be changed. I did offer a scenario on how it could be done by simply keeping the matchups that we played in 2015 when we played the AFC East. Times and ways of doing things change. From 1966 to 1990 the NFL didn't have bye weeks, the schedule used to be 10 games long, the league used to be smaller, and on and on. Change happens all the time that's why I don't see it as such a huge deal to do something different from the "norm".

 

Please don't think that I really care this much about one game on the NFL schedule. My point was and still is that the NFL missed out on a good opportunity by not having this particular game in Indy. I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just giving my reasoning as to why I feel this way. I love debate and discussion and love coming here to the forum. I do think it would be great if we could learn to disagree without calling the ideas and thoughts of others "dumb". If you disagree with me that's fine but give me more than that's "dumb" or a "bad idea". My apologies for the manifesto.

Just as an outside observer and someone who knows the the posters and who responded.

 

I don't think they think it's dumb because they don't agree with it, I think they think it's dumb because the schedules and home vs away games are determined well in advance... years.  So in order to accommodate your idea of switching it to a home game for the Colts would not only cause every team to readjust their schedule this year but for the next several years.  and to cause that type of disruption just so the Colts fans can boo does not make a lot of sense.

[Myles]

22 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Why would it be dumb to make more money and make the game more interesting? And if you go back to my original post, I never said the NFL should switch the schedule. I just said they missed out on a good opportunity by leaving the game in New England. What is the big deal with keeping the system as is?

 

I really don't understand why people on this forum can't learn to disagree with others without saying that what someone else has said is "dumb". What is gained by that? If you disagree give your reasoning for why. My entire point was that the NFL missed an opportunity by leaving this game in New England instead of Indianapolis. For a league that has seen declining ratings over the last couple of seasons and a sport that is seeing declining participation nationwide, I would think it would be SMART to make each and every game as interesting as possible. I don't think anyone can deny that this game would have much more appeal to it if the Patriots and Josh McDaniels had to come here. At no point did I call for the schedule to be changed. I did offer a scenario on how it could be done by simply keeping the matchups that we played in 2015 when we played the AFC East. Times and ways of doing things change. From 1966 to 1990 the NFL didn't have bye weeks, the schedule used to be 10 games long, the league used to be smaller, and on and on. Change happens all the time that's why I don't see it as such a huge deal to do something different from the "norm".

 

Please don't think that I really care this much about one game on the NFL schedule. My point was and still is that the NFL missed out on a good opportunity by not having this particular game in Indy. I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just giving my reasoning as to why I feel this way. I love debate and discussion and love coming here to the forum. I do think it would be great if we could learn to disagree without calling the ideas and thoughts of others "dumb". If you disagree with me that's fine but give me more than that's "dumb" or a "bad idea". My apologies for the manifesto.

I apologize if I used the word "dumb" as an insult.  That wasn't my intention.  

For the league to change the venue of this game, it would have affected many, many other games as well.   Perhaps losing more money on the other games they had to change.  

I don't think they missed out on much, if any, money by having the game in NE.   It will be a sellout there.   It also depends on which home game the Colts would have to give up. 

[Fluke_33]

5 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/533517002

 

will colts fans boo McDaniels as he walks into the field? I didn’t realize the colts only had one prime time game. 

 

5 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I believe the game is in Foxboro so I doubt the boos from Colts fans will be that noticeable. The NFL missed a good opportunity by leaving this game in New England. 

I will be there and i will boo and probably have beer thrown on me or at least thrown in my general direction.

[Reality Check]

5 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

I will be there and i will boo and probably have beer thrown on me or at least thrown in my general direction.

Considering that he Pats yank season ticket holders' accounts for such actions, I think you will be fine.

I sit in the endzone and we always have lots of visiting fans around us.  The worse thing that will happen to you is that you will be forced to make "the walk of shame" if you do any trash-talking during the game.

[deedub75]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I partially agree.   One thing I like about the NFL is that in any 4 years span, all teams had a comparable schedule. 

 

Now if there was an option to swap a couple games and have this one in Indy, it would have been a good idea.   My guess is that it would not have been easy or possible.   The scheduling is not an easy thing to do.  8 home, 8 road games.  They have set teams they have to make fit for everyone.  

 

That is not a good reason to move a game. It may be a good reason to flex a game but to move the location of a game merely for “drama” doesn’t seem fair to me. With that said, I’m sure it’s happened before without the teams or fans knowing. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

30 minutes ago, Myles said:

I apologize if I used the word "dumb" as an insult.  That wasn't my intention.  

For the league to change the venue of this game, it would have affected many, many other games as well.   Perhaps losing more money on the other games they had to change.  

I don't think they missed out on much, if any, money by having the game in NE.   It will be a sellout there.   It also depends on which home game the Colts would have to give up. 

 

The only difficulty with switching from how the schedule is set up now to what I suggested would come from the games involving the NY Jets since they share a stadium with the Giants and it could happen with just tweaking the games on those 2 weekends. 

 

I agree the game will be a sellout in New England just like it would in Indy.

 

Apology accepted! I really do enjoy coming here and enjoy the discussion and debate.

 

The only games the Colts would lose would be the Bills and Dolphins and we would have the Jets and Patriots instead just like 2015.

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Why would it be dumb to make more money and make the game more interesting? And if you go back to my original post, I never said the NFL should switch the schedule. I just said they missed out on a good opportunity by leaving the game in New England. What is the big deal with keeping the system as is?

 

I really don't understand why people on this forum can't learn to disagree with others without saying that what someone else has said is "dumb". What is gained by that? If you disagree give your reasoning for why. My entire point was that the NFL missed an opportunity by leaving this game in New England instead of Indianapolis. For a league that has seen declining ratings over the last couple of seasons and a sport that is seeing declining participation nationwide, I would think it would be SMART to make each and every game as interesting as possible. I don't think anyone can deny that this game would have much more appeal to it if the Patriots and Josh McDaniels had to come here. At no point did I call for the schedule to be changed. I did offer a scenario on how it could be done by simply keeping the matchups that we played in 2015 when we played the AFC East. Times and ways of doing things change. From 1966 to 1990 the NFL didn't have bye weeks, the schedule used to be 10 games long, the league used to be smaller, and on and on. Change happens all the time that's why I don't see it as such a huge deal to do something different from the "norm".

 

Please don't think that I really care this much about one game on the NFL schedule. My point was and still is that the NFL missed out on a good opportunity by not having this particular game in Indy. I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just giving my reasoning as to why I feel this way. I love debate and discussion and love coming here to the forum. I do think it would be great if we could learn to disagree without calling the ideas and thoughts of others "dumb". If you disagree with me that's fine but give me more than that's "dumb" or a "bad idea". My apologies for the manifesto.

 

Here is my attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Do you honestly think the league should care enough to move this game to Indy just because of what happened in January?  As I said earlier, they have other infinitely more important things to worry about.

 

Do you honestly believe the ratings would be appreciably better because it is in Indy over Foxboro?  Does Joe the plumber in Sheybogan, WI not tune because this game is game is at New England where he would have if it was in Indy?  Do people around the nation really care enough to see John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels Sucks T-shirt?  Would that cause a ratings spike?

 

I think the clear answer is it really doesn't matter where the game is played.

 

[Four2itus]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the clear answer is it really doesn't matter where the game is played.

 

Exactly

 

Also, the fans idea that locker room quotes make players play harder is absurd to me. These players are supposed to be the best in the world. They are literally playing for their jobs every play. What...like they have another gear of effort they keep in their back pocket for times they are REALLy offended?

 

Also, I love saying Sheybogan. 

[Myles]

8 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Exactly

 

Also, the fans idea that locker room quotes make players play harder is absurd to me. These players are supposed to be the best in the world. They are literally playing for their jobs every play. What...like they have another gear of effort they keep in their back pocket for times they are REALLy offended.

 

Also, I love saying Sheygogan. 

I disagree.   They are human after all.   I'm supposed to do the best at my job every day, but if I have added motivation, you bet your butt I will kick it into another gear.    Perhaps the affect is exaggerated a little.