MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
What is the problem then?
Neither Cowher or Gruden had Manning either.
It wasn't my intention to imply that there WAS a problem. Nor am I all that concerned with defending Fox in the first place. My interest goes no further than the fact that he happens to be coaching the team that Peyton is playing on.
However the fact is that they had a terrific season. Anyone who considers it a failure in any way shape or form should take a look at the thirty coaches whose teams did "worse". I'm not concerned with micro-analysis of what fans perceive to be his in game decisions - 99.9% of coaching is done long before you get to that point. .
Yes, Fox had Manning, but he didn't have half his defense. The manner in which they compensated was impressive - with a bad coach they might have missed the playoffs rather than made the SB. Gruden didn't have Manning, but he had Tampa Bays historically great defense - which he contributed absolutely didly to. He was along for the ride nearly as much as Dilfer.
Cowher had some fine defenses as well, but it still took him 14 years of head coaching (and a top ten QB with some fine weapons) before he won a SB. So at year 13 he was 0-1 in Super Bowls. At year 12 Fox is 0-2. I'm wondering both if some here would consider 0-1 to be better than 0-2 (after all, if you lose in the Super Bowl you are by definition a loser, so more losing must be worse, right?) and what people were saying about Cower before year 14.
Fox is a solid coach who has had a long and successful career. Gruden is a solid (if immature wack-job) of a coach. His specialty is offense, but the Broncos just set the points record with Fox. What is Gruden going to do besides set it back three years in an effort to reinvent it in his image, while neglecting the more problematic defense. Cowher has a historically fine winning percentage (benefiting from not having to worry much about losing his job the way that Pittsburgh handles their coaches) but frankly I've never been able to stand the man (or the personalities of his teams) personally and don't want him anywhere near any team that I'm rooting for. And both retired young. Does the fact that they aren't even trying bring them additional respect? Does either have a clue how to handle the way the game has evolved?
The bottom line is basically that Fox is good enough. I'm glad they they decided to leave it alone.
-
I am not sure how you could watch the Super Bowl and feel good about Fox as a HC. And he had some highly questionable calls in the Ravens game as well two years ago with the kneel down with 30 seconds and 2 time outs.
I do agree though that a change at this point probably would not make sense for Manning but then again Manning is going to run his Indy offense no matter who the head coach is. I think some of the coaches that have been in retirement like Cowher and Gruden may come out of it to coach Manning for a couple of seasons. I do think the Broncos could do better but the timing may just not be there at this point.
I didn't say that Fox was a superstar, I just said that he isn't the problem. However dumping him WOULD be a problem.
What gives anyone the impression that Cowher or Gruden are better? Because they won a SB? Cowher lost SBs himself before finally winning one. If you evaluating him the year before he won one would you think of him differently? And if so - frankly that's ridiculous. HCs make a huge difference, but if he's good enough to get his team TO the SB, then he's good enough to WIN the SB. It's just another freaking game.
By the way, does anyone remember what was "special" about Gruden's win? He knew more about the opposing team than their own coach did. Bizarre circumstances that have virtually nothing to do with his skills. Those men are "names" now because they've been on tv everyday for years. When they were coaching their were plenty of people criticizing them - just like every other coach in the league.
-
I think when we criticize Fox, its not because he is a bad coach. Its because he doesn't have the championship winning factor in him.
Crossing the last step is very tough. Its in the mind. I don't think he believes in himself. We saw his challenge flags during the SB. Thats all on him. You cant blame players. And he didnt expect the noise??. I mean this is SB.
Got to get creative and take calculated risks.
Look at Sean Payton's onside kick.
Belichick going with Brady to throw rather than going over time.
Game changers. Fortune favors the brave.
Fortune mostly favors the lucky. it's 20-20 hindsite to look at a coaches decision and suggest that THAT'S why the team won.
IE: Sean Payton's onside kick - if a certain wide receiver doesn't let the ball bounce off his chest, Payton might have spent the past few years as the laughingstock who cost his team a chance to win the SB. Are you suggesting that he is somehow responsible for, or capable of predicting the fumble on the onside kick? It was actually an absurd stroke of desperation.
-
So it would be better to let him play out next year as a lame duck, and then hire an entirely new coaching staff to work with a then THIRTY-NINE year old Peyton?
Or do you just fire him immediately on the heels of an overwhelmingly successful season?
And who does anyone imagine they would find as a replacement that would be an immediate improvement?
Whoever you have in mind, the odds of them being "the missing ingredient" rather than "an overwhelming distraction that is the last thing the team needs" is somewhere between slim and none.
Fox is fine. I'm not sure how you complain about a guy with long-term success as a defensive oriented coach (three SB appearances for those who only count such things), who has the confidence to hire another successful defensively oriented head coach as his DC, and let a young kid and an aging QB define his offense. How is a new guy to "improve" things without simultaneously ripping it all apart to impose his will? And how long will that take exactly even if it works?
-
One catch a Swallow does not make.
And one Swallow does not a ............ now I'm just getting confused.
(Flock, I was going to say FLOCK!)
-
My default preference is always a warm weather site, but at least with a dome the weather won't affect the game, so I don't really care. But I'd vote for Indy first, New Orleans second, and hope to hell it isn't Minn.
Why? I just think it would be cool if Peyton's final game is back home.
Of course it may not be his final game - he might continue for several years after that. ;)
-
You raise a valid point MAC. How do you move an intoxicated person off an elevator without looking like a Monty Python "bring out the dead Middle Ages" comedy skit? Even Vegas security guards aren't that well versed in a PC way to remove drunken customers politely from the premises. There is no neat & tidy way to do it.
"Help, help, I'm being repressed".
-
Yep.....she isn't required to testify against him now though.
Good point.....I;m trying not to be cynical and think that's why they got married..
I'll say again - many of us are assuming the above because of the timing (and because we all watch a lot of tv drama's) but it may not be true. Apparently in NJ a wife can be compelled to testify against her husband in a case of domestic violence.
Here's a crazy idea - maybe they love each other!
-
Maybe the video of him dragging her off the elevator is in itself not incriminating of assault or of him knocking her unconscious, but apparently there are other videos, and witnesses, and enough for the charges to be brought forward. And I don't believe his then fiance' ~ now wife was the one who pressed the charges..so I don't know if her having no interest in charges being pursued comes in to play, but she won't have to testify now, which is what my comment was referring to.
I don't doubt that he's had a good reputation, and never been in trouble before, but dragging her off the elevator, like a sack of potatoes, was very disturbing to me. Who knows how this will all play out. I guess we'll see.
No the fiance didn't press charges. That's the point - that this continues despite her disinterest in doing so. If she was in the hospital and lambasting him (and there was a pattern of behavior) I'd hardly be speaking up for him. You are right - it really depends on the other evidence. If they exchanged blows that's very different from him overtly attempting to hurt her. I'm assuming from the wife's reaction (and lack of injury) that it's the former.
I found the video off-putting as I noted, however all it really shows is a drunken chucklehead trying to figure out how to get his fiance back to her hotel room. Unable to carry her, and alone in an elevator, the options aren't terrific. It was ridiculous, but doesn't reflect on the "crime" in any way. It would hardly have been better for him to - for instance - leave her alone to go riding the floors unconscious. Hell, Darren Sharper would have considered it a golden opportunity. There are degrees of guilt, and this pales in comparison to the majority of sports related "incidents" that we talk about.
From what I've read the wedding has no impact on her testifying. Friends say that they are in counseling and happy. It feels like a case where Rice's celebrity is the primary reason charges haven't been dropped, and I have difficulty seeing how the wife and child benefit from him being dragged off to jail. I wonder how many abused women around the state beg for the police to put this kind of time into their situations without success. Pretty ironic actually.
-
~ however the video that surfaced in this particular case is pretty incriminating...
I found the way he treated her while unconscious disconcerting - it's your fiance, not a sack of potatoes - but it certainly isn't incriminating. I assumed that she was drunk the first time that I saw it.
Personally I would have called for medical attention and (if necessary) found someone to help me carry her properly. But being a
isn't illegal. Of course I'm also not clear why a 200+ pound professional athlete would be incapable of carrying his girlfriend. In viewing the tape, the Ravens might be less concerned with his morality than with the need for an off-season conditioning program. Seriously....??? How convenient.
Not a conspiracy, a reflection of the fact that his (now) wife has no interest in charges being pursued. Surely that should be taken into consideration when judging from afar?
Rice went to school 20 miles from my house, and I've followed his career, and I've never heard a bad word about him. Quite the opposite actually. There is no excuse for striking someone demonstrably weaker than yourself, but his fiance did hit him first, and she is clearly willing to give him a second chance. Why basis do we have for judging him harsher than she does? We aren't talking about Darren Sharper here.
-
It's also a "possibility" that the moon will crash into the earth. I don't even see a rumor here.
Don't want him on the Broncos regardless. Never liked him when he was a superstar, and that's long gone anyway. If they decide that they need a "name" back, I suspect that Moreno could be brought back for a lot less money - and we already know that his attitude, effort and effectiveness are perfectly suited to that offense.
Overpaid primadonas can apply elsewhere.
-
Why fix what is not broke? You can say you didn't think Dum was special but he worked well with Miller and Miller is still there. Like you said they did fine with Philips and now have an aging Ware at a ton of cash. Would have been smarter to just pay Dumerville and keep rolling with an in prime player at a lower cost.
You are assuming that they wanted him to leave. It's pretty clear from how they've handled numerous other players that they aren't shy about letting players go. They obviously wanted Dumervil to stay. They made him a good offer and he didn't take it (how the snafu is characterized is irrelevant, he could have taken the deal three days before the deadline if he had made up his mind).
How has an aging Mathis worked out? Apparently they disagree about Ware's ability. In his prime he was better than Phillips and Dumevil combined, so he could decline and still be an improvement. We will see. My guess is that they will limit his snaps, but that he when he comes it will be effective. They have several others to rotate with him.
-
I think it is more the value for the deal then the length. Ware is 32 and coming off a down season last year. Some analysts have said that he is not able to beat tackles one-on-one. $13 mil is an awful big gamble IMO especially when they could have signed Dumerville for less last year in his prime.
I never thought that Dumerville was all that special - he largely benefited from playing opposite Miller. And the Broncos got sacks from Phillips, Ayers and others off the right side last year - even without Miller - but still felt the need for an upgrade. I'm sure that Ware isn't what he was, but he had four sacks in his first three games last year and then had an injury. He thinks he's fine. The Broncos think he's fine. It's a gamble, but a good one. Another injury would be a problem, but he hasn't exactly been injury prone previously. If he rebounds it will be a home run - not only improving the rush from the right side but helping Miller in several ways. Worst case scenarios, he's still better than Phillips, it's just money down the drain.
-
I want to see him use all that genius to develop a QB.
Therein lies the dilemma: Just because John Elway is a HOF QB, it doesn't mean that he can pass that knowledge onto a rookie field general. Being a genius at something & handing that genius down to a new recruit is extremely rare.
If "those who can't do teach," what do yellow jacket QBs do? Go into TV gigs or executive administrative positions? Knowing something & passing that knowledge on to another is a whole different animal & not every animal survives in the jungle now do they?
Right SW - apples and oranges. I wouldn't expect Wayne Gretzky to be able to "teach" someone to see every player on the ice in slow motion High Def clarity, anticipate their movements with precognition bordering on the supernatural, and slide a pass to the perfect spot with the accuracy of a special forces sniper.
I would think that his job is to HIRE the right coaches to develop a QB, while putting the right complementary pieces around him - not to ask his secretary to hold his calls so he can go running around the practice field in penny loafers - tie flapping over his shoulder - demonstrating technique to the 53rd guy on his roster.
-
The way that Polian handled the Colts from the day he was hired clear through the SB win is really hard to argue with.
The problem is that when too many draft picks became injury prone or didn't pan out, he adjusted his methodology by overpaying for current players rather than looking outside the organization. The beginning of the end was Glenn retiring in 2007 (well, Peyton's neck injury in 2006 actually but that's a different story). With a team built around an elite QB, finding a competent LT should have been an urgent priority, not a four year failed experiment.
We all know that he has personality issues, and I think it's related to this. He appeared to be unwilling (or incapable) of negotiating with anyone. Drafting is something you can do effectively without the necessity of either competing or schmoozing face to face - it's just you and a draft board.
Time will tell how wise Elway's decisions are, but what he brings to the table is a car salesman's chutzpah on top of a HOFers will to win. I'm sure that his people and management skills benefit him within the organization as well. He knows that it's "all about Peyton and the chance to win right now" and he's actively selling the concept. People come to that building eagerly and they rarely leave without a contract. He's got the will to let people walk, while bringing in arguably better replacements at team friendly terms that the players are never-the-less giddy with joy at the opportunity to accept.
The Manning of 2007-2010 had the same theoretical pull, but Polian didn't exploit it. Whether Elway has the eye for talent that served Polian so well in his prime remains to be seen.
-
I understand the Peyton connection but it didn't stop the Colts and Denver is not successful solely because of Peyton's 5 yard dump offs.
I'm simply saying the verdict is still out on Elway. So far he's proven he can hit or miss in the draft, like everyone else, he can sign a Colts quarterback, a Patriots slot receiver, both of whom weren't wanted by their teams... and... what?
I'm sure New England will drop off after Brady retires. Maybe Belichick will keep them going, but the days of roaring back to tie the 49'ers when down 31-3 will be over, and storming back to beat Denver when down 24-0 will be over, and bringing a horrid defense like the 2011 Patriots defense to the Superbowl, and just barely losing it, will be over. The Brady magic will be over, even if Belichick can keep them a play off team through depth and new talent.
Don't want to lead the thread off topic but Brady's legacy is set in stone, no matter how many of his rival fan bases hope some flimsy excuse to challenge it arises.
Just tweaking you - I'm not knocking Brady. My point was that your picture of teams rising and falling casually while the Patriots reign supreme is incredibly miss-leading. Whatever Elway's accomplishments, the Broncos are where they are because of Peyton - just like the Colts were. What differentiates the Patriots is that they've had BB/TB together for the duration. Peyton's been to the Super Bowl with two GMs and three head coaches. That's not a fact that should be glossed over when discussing the Patriots rivals - he's been right there the entire time.
The point is that if the Broncos fall back to 8-8 it will be because Peyton retires. That's hardly comparable to the other teams you've mentioned who each built a strong enough defense and caught enough lightening in a bottle on offense to temporarily sniff the same air that Peyton (and the Patriots) have been living in for a very long time now. Your assumption should be that the Patriots are facing a very similar problem - the only difference being that they are trying very hard to once again build up their defense and their running game to the point where the QB is complementary, and they don't need Brady. If they succeed, BB will truly be in rarefied air. It will be interesting to watch.
Similarly it will be hard to judge Elway until after Peyton retires. I think that he's largely maximized the opportunity presented to him by signing Peyton, but he's simultaneously trying to build the team for the long haul while developing another QB. Whether he succeeds or not will go a long way towards forming peoples opinions of him - whether he wins the SB with Peyton or not. But if they do drop - it's hardly surprising. Take any top QB off their team and watch what happens.
-
As a Pats fan, it's hard to be impressed yet. We've had so many rivals come and go for AFC dominance. Denver is really just the latest.
We've had the Steelers come and go, the Jets come and go, the Ravens come and go, the Chargers come and go, even the Colts (although the Colts didn't leave for long, not that they're `competing` for dominance yet, but your downswing was brief and here you are again.)
My point is, all of these teams were praising all their moves at the time. Rex Ryan was the new savior of the Jets. Tomlin was the new savior of the Steelers. Phillip Rivers was the new savior of the Chargers, here come the Ravens, 2 AFC Championships in a row...
And now Denver.
They rise, they fall.
Let's see what Denver looks like in 2016, 2017, 2018, because they might just be right back to 8-8.
I'm really not blown away by anything Elway has done, or have I missed something?
What's lacking from your perspective is that the Colts were a rival and the Broncos now are a rival because of the same person. It's been Manning vs Brady/BB for more than a decade, and the other rivalries you mention don't come close to falling into the same category. One would expect this to continue as long as the three of them are all still in the game.
Sure, the Broncos may well sink to 8-8 after Peyton retires, but what's your point? It's a QB driven league. The QBs of the other teams that you mention aren't even on the same planet.
It's true that the Pats may well be more resilient after Brady retires - assuming that Belichik - whom I have a lot of respect for - is still running the show. But if Brady truly is all that Pats fans claim him to be, one would think that there will be a material falloff. If not, than perhaps some other arguments should be re-considered. You really can't expect to have it both ways.
-
I have no idea, but the Denver Post sums it up by saying essentially that all the big contracts they offered have comparatively painless "outs" after two years. It's been amusing listening to everyone jumping on the "Elway's crippling the team for years to come in a gamble to win now with Manning who is about to retire at any minute".
No, actually - just like the past two years. And it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Manning is still leading the team while half of the new players are gone.
-
What I want to know, is how do these two teans (Denver/New England) keep on making these huge FA splashes and still stay within the cap space? It seems like they have these never ending Brinks trucks lined up that just keep dumping endless supplies of cash!
Well.............................
-
Yikes, I was with you right up until this little gem. Are you suggesting that the Patriots are unethical in their approach to the salary cap? They follow the cap rules like anyone else and are always within the rules that are outlined by the league. I don't see how anyone can call their management of the cap "unethical" and sounds like a cheap shot to me.
The rest of your post is great, but that comment really threw me off.
Well it wouldn't exactly be a normal transaction, but I have little interest in taking cheap shots at the Pats. A fan of the team would call it clever cap manipulation. Someone else would call it something else. Semantics. As long as the league doesn't care than neither do I. I'm not taking a shot at them, just at those who laud Brady for this.
What I object to is people applauding Brady as if he has made a noble sacrifice, when to this point he has not. He was in the middle of a long term contract that made him the highest paid QB in the sport at the time he signed it. With two years left in the deal they did that extension. Last year and this upcoming year he got/will get exactly as much money as he was going to anyway, plus a bunch extra as a reward for agreeing to the extension. There hasn't been one iota of sacrifice - he made MORE money. Many expect that contract to be adjusted once more before the day in September of 2015 when he actually steps onto the field at a bargain rate. If he holds to it I'll applaud him at the time, but it's a bit premature to do so now.
I certainly couldn't criticize them for doing something that they haven't actually done yet anyway. That's not exactly fair. I'm just talking about IF they end up increasing his salary again. Big if.
One could surmise that they made the deal in anticipation of his value dropping as he ages, and Brady (knowing BB's penchant for dropping overpaid players without hesitation) didn't want to put himself in a position where the team was forced to release him. That would be smart and fair on both sides. That would leave room for his salary to be increased again if it turned out that his play hadn't deteriorated after all. Or it could imply a level of trust on Brady's part all along that it was going to happen, which would constitute a handshake agreement as part of a cynical effort to circumvent the cap. Unfair to some, but not illegal. It would be the player taking the risk, and if he has that level of trust, good for him. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.
The larger issue is whether any of us should be applauding any player for these decisions. We aren't talking about Mother Theresa. If a player does so it isn't because he's more of a "winner" than the next guy, or because he wants to give something back to the fans, it's because he's at a stage in his life where he can afford to put winning (ego) above money (greed). Pick the human sin/virtue. What we're applauding is the player doing something that coincidentally benefits US, but it doesn't pay to look too closely at the motivation behind it. It's silly to either applaud or criticize any of these guys for these decisions. They are worried about themselves, and we are worried about ourselves, and we're all the same underneath.
-
Let's see , a shiftless agent, a bankrupt of fair play Elway, and an ex- Steeler ? Guilty !
I detested Elway for many years as well, but lets be realistic here. He was arrogant and it was painful, but he was honest and his concerns were valid, and he had options. They could have taken the hint and fired the staff. They could have called his bluff. They could have auctioned the pick rather than waiting until their hands were tied, and then drafted one of the other HOF QBs from that class. The incompetence was appalling. Elway is ultimately the LAST one in that whole sordid affair that I feel anger for - just another blip in the middle of two decades of idiocy and embarrassment.
Sanders seems like a really nice kid, and I'm exited about him going to Denver. Even if the truth is that he or his agent gave the Chiefs reason to believe that he was going to sign with them, they failed to close the deal. I'm always wary about getting exited about a free agent rumor until the ink is dry. The idea is to get them in the building and not let them leave - we see it all the time. He wanted to play for Denver, he got an offer from Denver while still a free agent, and he took it. End of story. Decker was supposed to get offers from others teams and then bring them back to the Broncos to see if they would match it, but he simply went to NY and signed. I don't see Elway making complaints about it in national newspapers, he just found went in a different direction.
-
In his press conference, Sanders said that there was NO handshake. He was close to a deal with the Chiefs, but nothing official. His agent didn't take the offer and flog it to other teams, his agent was called by those teams. And he wanted to play for the Broncos from the get go, calling playing with Peyton a wide receivers dream. He asked his agent up front to make sure that Denver knew he was available, and he called him everyday to ask if Denver had called yet. They finally called, the money matched, and he eagerly signed. He said that he couldn't be happier with his agent - everything that he said was going to happen, happened.
Elway also referred to the problem as a likely miscommunication, and it happened every day in the league.
-
You mention Brady. I never mentioned Brady above. But if you want to try to squash it quickly before anyone can respond, too bad...
Plenty of players through out the history of sports have stayed with a team for less money, taken pay cuts, turned down better offers from other teams that offered them more and restructured their contracts. Anquan Boldin publicly begged and threatened the Ravens to keep him and he'd stay for less money.
The thing is Peyton makes a LOT more than all other NFL players when you also factor in sponsorship deals. Peyton makes the most money outside his football contract from sponsors more than any other NFL player. In fact Peyton's sponsorship deals alone is worth more than most NFL player's contracts. So he can live like a king just off sponsorship money alone.
Brady took less to free up cap space for the Patriots. They back loaded his contract but there is no guarantee Brady will ever see that money when he's 40 either as there are no guarantee contracts in the NFL and everyone is expendable. For you to just claim it had nothing to do with that is ridiculous and envy on your part.
Tom Brady Signed A Contract For $30 Million Less Than He's Worth — Here's Why
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-brady-less-money-contract-2013-2#ixzz2w9NChbHb
Tom Brady signed a three-year contract extension for $27 million yesterday in a deal that will keep him in New England until 2017, Sports Illustrated's Peter King reports.
The going rate for a top-tier QB these days is $20 million a year. Drew Brees and Peyton Manning make that, and Joe Flacco too.
So Brady didn't just give the Pats a hometown discount, he signed a deal for less than half of what he's worth on the open market.
The reasons are simple: He wants to win and he wants job security.
Brady's deal is a brilliant piece of salary cap maneuvering by New England. The specifics are complicated, but at the end of the day Brady's extension frees up $15 million in salary cap for the Pats over the next two years, King reports.
By taking less money, Brady will have better players around him.
Come on Peyton, don't be like Kobe Bryant.Give me a break. When someone with the user name "Patriots nation" comes onto a Colt board to suggest that Peyton Manning should take a pay cut, he's "talking about Brady".
Players take "discounts" (it's never possible to tell what really happens behind the scenes) because they don't want to move their families, or they feel that they will excel in a certain system (and thus reap greater benefits down the road), or they feel that being on a winning team will help them reap greater benefits down the road. They do what's in their own best interests - PERIOD. It isn't charity. Peyton makes a lot of money, but if he had the mindset of the purely mercenary Darelle Revis for example, he could be making $30 million per year. He's taking a fair salary and he gives a fortune to ACTUAL charities. Do you see an ethical problem here? One could just as easily make the argument that a player saying "my wife is a supermodel making even more money than I do, I don't need to take a competitive salary" IS unethical. I guess that Rodgers can't afford to take less money, should he marry a supermodel in order to provide his team a competitive advantage? Here's a suggestion, how about everybody just gets paid a fair salary and their teams get to compete on a level playing field. I call THAT ethical.
The thing is, there is no evidence that Brady will be playing for a discount in the first place. PLEASE don't get my friend amfootball (an actual nice person who happens to unfortunately be a Pats fan) started. We've been through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
In a nutshell, ALL that has happened to this point is that Brady received several million dollars in ADDITIONAL money and the Patriots manipulated the salary cap. Once again, lets wait until Brady actually PLAYS for a reduced salary before elevating him to Sainthood. I expect them to magically renegotiate before the first play of the first reduced year. If that happens, the entire exercise would be revealed as cap manipulation. And THAT'S unethical. If he actually plays for that amount I'll be happy to tip my hat to him at the time. I doubt it will be necessary.
Lastly, envy? Of what? I feel dislike for the Patriots as currently constituted, disgust for Brady (the guy has just rubbed me the wrong way since 2001), and (far more relevantly) intense distain for fans that come onto a foreign teams website to
. Your dysfunctional hobby is my misery. But envy? When you are fortunate enough to be able to root for Peyton there is no need to be envious of anyone, I assure you. 
perhaps there is a reason that you feel the need to come to a foreign teams site and I don't. WHAT might THAT be?Don't be disappointed if I don't "bite" on your inevitably obnoxious and irrational comeback. I've had enough "fun" for one day. .
-
Well, some facts for you to chew on.
1. We beat a fairly healthy Denver with all its 4 wideouts playing. Chargers beat them without Welker, Patriots beat them without Julius Thomas. The Colts were the only team to beat them with all their 4 weapons - DT, Decker, Welker, JT. In fact, we laid a blueprint for preventing YAC that Pagano inferred to in the Pro Bowl (in an NFL Network segement while being asked about the SB participants) that the Seahawks mastered. Pass rush to go along with preventing YAC to beat the Broncos.
The Colts are built right to play the Broncos tough, but last year was at home in a perfect storm of emotion. In Denver it will be entirely different. And while the top four receivers may have been healthy, Peyton wasn't. That's kind of important, don't you think?
That being said, the Colts faced a much tougher schedule than the Broncos last year, and it will likely be reversed this year, so it's entirely possible that Colts finish with a better record. That game may actually well be the tiebreaker.
isn't illegal. Of course I'm also not clear why a 200+ pound professional athlete would be incapable of carrying his girlfriend. In viewing the tape, the Ravens might be less concerned with his morality than with the need for an off-season conditioning program. 
. Your dysfunctional hobby is my misery. But envy? When you are fortunate enough to be able to root for Peyton there is no need to be envious of anyone, I assure you. 
perhaps there is a reason that you feel the need to come to a foreign teams site and I don't. WHAT might THAT be?
Wealthiest NFL players of all time (hint: Peyton and Brady not in top 2)
in NFL General
Posted
The bit about Staubach is a bit confusing. It implies that the company was sold for $640 mil, and that Staubach owned 12% of it. That would equate to $76.8 million. It would have to have sold for over five billion to generate what they suggest. Granted he might have accumulated wealth over the years aside from the sale, and his worth might have increased since 2008, but the numbers don't make a lot of sense.
In fact this article (http://nreionline.com/news/Staubach_Jones_Lang_Acquisition) states that the terms of sale were:
"Jones Lang LaSalle is paying $123 million in cash, $100 million in stock at the transaction close and the balance in cash over five years, for all of the outstanding capital stock of Staubach Holdings Inc."
So unless the stock that he got for the new company increased vastly in value (during a time when the economy - in particular the real estate sector - was sinking like a stone) there would appear to be something seriously wrong with that write-up.