MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
There are 267 games per season (if my quick math is correct). They are showing 16 of them. That's only enough room to show each team once - and by definition half of those teams would be shown losing. Who wants to watch a replay of a loss?
They are showing the Colts twice - both in victories. That's pretty clearly not "sticking" it to the Colts. How about the teams that are only shown in losses? How about the teams who are only shown in the middle of the night? How about the teams who aren't shown at all? Is this really worth starting a thread about?
STOP with the Indy insecurity.
-
Never said it was unreasonable....it's a fair contract. But a player in his position, having made the money he has over his career, taking less to win another ring would make sense and would not be unique.
Actually I would say that it very well might be unique for a player in Manning's position to do what you suggest, plus (as I said before) one could make the argument that he already DID. Anyone remember when he supposedly could have locked in for $25? How much do you think that the Jets or someone might have been willing to pay him? Maybe people should pat him on the back for the decisions he's already made instead of suggesting that he's greedy and selfish.
Peyton already makes less than Rodgers, Ryan, Flacco and Brees, and pretty much the same as Brady (before the questionable cap manipulation was put in place). Do their teams not need to sign other free agents as well? Cutler, Romo and Stafford are JUST below him. In comparison aren't they VASTLY overpaid? The next level of QB's below that are overpaid even more. QBs make a lot of money. That's a given in a salary cap. GMs don't complain about it, they celebrate it. It's the REST of the roster that's the problem.
It's just a silly topic. As I discussed in earlier replies, it's simply not a fans place to say that an athlete has made "enough" money. I SERIOUSLY doubt that any of us would feel the same way about the subject if we were on the other end.
-
Nobody is suggesting he play for free or even half of what he is making. It's not like he would be the first pro athlete to take less in the twilight of their career. Hell, Reggie took less money to stay with the Colts and he has made of fraction of what Manning has in his career. I really don't care what he makes, but if he wants to win another championship at this point in his career he is making it harder on himself with that contract.
Once again, he is also taking less money than he could be - likely by a far higher percentage discount (and vastly more money in total) than that Reggie theoretically might be.
Not to mention the fact that it's hard to give a home-town discount when your home-town releases you. Why is the implication suddenly that Peyton's contract is unreasonable? It's a freaking bargain.
-
Fx Stryker proposed an interesting approach in his post: "How about he take a 3yr/ $3M extension to spread the contract out." One which you & I both liked presumably to cost less money in the longrun & use that savings over time to either draft more athletic players or secure the services of a trusted veteran. You need more money to land key weapons under NFL salary cap restrictions. It's as simple as that.
Yes, Pat Bowlen loves the revenue that Manning is generating annually at Mile High in terms of merchandizing sales, ticket sales, & broadcasting revenue sure, but winning Championships is paramount in ownership circles & Pat Bowlen expects Manning to win a SB not come ever so close. You are paying 18 to essentially get you over the hump & win team rings where your revenue will easily double & triple financially speaking.
Why take less money you ask? Gee, I don't know to get a better line, to get premium pass rushers, & win the SB god willing. No, you are swapping intense greed for more greed, which directly benefits the owner more than it ever does the fans MAC let's get real here okay.
No, not all NFL businesses are competitive. The Oakland Raiders have been a dismal franchise since about 2002.
It's abundantly clear why the fans, management and owner would want a player to take less. I'm saying "on what planet is it fair or appropriate to expect the player to take less".
FX's comment was a joke. He was alluding to Brady's absurd contract with a ;) . It wasn't a "real" suggestion at all. Such a deal would create an enormous amount of dead money for the Broncos which their every action suggests they are trying to avoid. Would I want it? Well as a Colts fan I don't particularly care if the Broncos end up with dead money after Peyton leaves, but it would be disingenuous for me to demand that the Broncos do it as if it's "the right thing to do". It isn't the right thing for them.
I've said the same things a few different ways here. Basically:
a) Players don't take pay cuts. Expecting to them to do so is ridiculous.
b) The Broncos don't want to cripple themselves. Expecting them to do so is ridiculous.
-
No argument there MAC. Peyton deserves to be compensated for all the preparation he puts in to win football games & the flawless precision he demands at practice. However, contracts are restructured all the time & they are often front loaded or back loaded to determine when a play receives the bulk of their money.
Ask several players to restructure their contracts not just 18. If you wanna win & compete for a championship, this move must be done. Manning may be NFL royalty, but Lombardi Greatness does not allow for a Divine Right Of Kings salary wise MAC. Something must give way 1st. There a word for that: Self sacrifice. What more important? Financial security or NFL immortality? Only Peyton can answer that question truthfully.
I know that SW, but that's not what this thread is about (as I was trying to point out).
This thread is flat out about asking Peyton to take a pay cut, which it sounds like you agree is an absurd proposition. Contract restructurings are about playing games with the cap - the player involved NEVER ends up with less money in their pockets as a result. In fact they virtually always get EXTRA money as part of the restructure. I also tried to point out that the BRONCOS don't appear to be interested in robbing peter to pay paul by creating large future dead money obligations. It's the TEAMS who do these things, it has precious little to do with the players.
And again, this was started by AM, and the motivation is to imply that "Brady has made a sacrifice, therefore he's better than Manning". As FX alluded to with a ;) in his reply, we've talked the Brady contract around in circles until we are all dizzy, and I don't believe that it was a sacrifice on his part in the first place. It's the most cynical kind of cap manipulation. The fact that the Broncos haven't stooped to the same level is admirable. The reality is that Peyton is ALREADY accepting perhaps $8 million or more less per season than he could get if he was putting his own financial interests ahead of winning. He's getting a fair contract.
Once again, it's a job. Players aren't fans, they are employees. All businesses are competitive. I'd love to find a person on here who is interested in reducing their own salary in hopes of improving their employers chances of competing and profiting. No, you obtain the most money that you possibly can, work as hard as you can, and when you leave the employer moves on. The Broncos owner is concerned with his own ego and profit, is he making a sacrifice for Manning? It's a business - period.
This all comes from people looking at their own paychecks and thinking "ah, he's rich, he doesn't need it". That's not their decision. Any employees LIFE revolves around how much money they earn. The job is simply what they do to earn the money. Why in Gods name would anyone expect an athlete to give away money to help the team? They pose it as a moral issue, but in actuality fans who suggest this are suggesting that a player swap one human failing (greed) for another (ego) because it benefits THEMSELVES. There is no moral high-ground here, everyone involved is thinking of themselves - such is life.
-
There is nothing wrong with Peyton's contract. He could have easily signed for $25 million per when he was a free agent, and pushed to renegotiate a lot higher than that after Flacco got paid if he was only concerned with money. He's got a fair contract.
For those talking about it being extended, I'll point out that it's designed to have as little dead money as possible in the event that Peyton is unable to play it out. It's in line with all the vets who are getting 1-2 year "show me" contracts from Denver. The team is trying to win now without sacrificing the future, and I can't imagine them being interested in deviating from that.
Topics such as this always have an underlying "he's got enough money - if he really cared about winning he'd play for free" tone. That's pure hogwash. It's a job, and he deserves to get paid. Plus the players association gets cranky at the thought of players taking less than they are entitled to. An elite player taking less directly takes money out of the pocket of the next elite player at the same position who gets franchised, and sets the standard lower for EVERY player at their position. It's not in "the players" interest for unnaturally low contracts to be issued, and players - as members of the association and as lifelong members of that informal fraternity - feel as much if not more loyalty towards other players than they do to management. In fact I'd say that an elite player playing "for free" would be about as well received as the players crossing the picket line when there was a strike. It's simply not realistic, fair, or rational on any level to suggest that any player "should" take a major cut in salary so their team can sign other players.
-
I think it was the Denver O that had people picking them. Most historic of all time and Manning played pretty well in the playoffs as well vs SD and NE. I agree though it felt more like a pick'em game. I think the real X factor was Wilson who showed tremendous poise for a second year QB making his first SB appearance. In contrast, Kaep looked pretty lost last year vs the Ravens until the lights went out.
Yes, I've consistently been impressed with Wilson - much more than I ever have been by Kapernick who I really don't like.
It "felt" like the Broncos did a good job on the first couple of Seattle drives because they held them to field goals, but those FGs came at the end of LONG drives. The time of possession early on was vastly favoring Seattle - a recipe for exhaustion and disaster later in the game if the O didn't turn it around.
Wilson was inconsistent, but had several superb individual efforts that extended drives. After awhile it "felt" like the Denver defense just couldn't get off of the field, which of course amped up the pressure on the Denver O to "make something happen". Against THAT defense that's not a good place to be. I was half-expecting a turnover on every third down.
-
MAC, 75% of the so-called "experts" picked Denver. Check every sports website.
I was responding to a troll who said that "everyone said it was a done deal". The comment was clearly another absurd exaggeration designed solely to irritate people like me, and I was attempting to balance it with rationality by saying that "many (if not most) experts" chose Seattle.
Here's a site that compiles picks: http://pickwatch.nflpickwatch.com/p/week-8-picks-z.html
It says that 57% picked the Broncos, and multiple people that I heard pick Seattle aren't even on here.
So which statement of the three do you imagine is more accurate and reasonable?
Those eager to dump on Denver either only hear what they want to hear, or pretend that Denver was an overwhelming favorite just to make their loss seem like an even bigger failure. Was Denver way ahead in the power rankings during the season? Is the AFC held in higher regard than the NFC? Is the AFC west held in higher regard than the NFC west? Seattle was the super-sized (and healthy) version of EXACTLY the type of teams that gave Denver (and Peyton led Colt teams) fits.
Even those who picked Denver acknowledged that it was a brutal match-up, they just thought that Denver had shown enough improvement in the first two rounds of the playoffs to overcome it. For every wishful comment about Peyton and that top offense capping their season with a SB win, there was a graphic demonstrating the previous failure of EVERY other top offense and QB. The betting line was less than a field goal, and I'd be willing to bet that it was viewed as basically an even game, with the "home team" advantage given to the most popular player in the league playing in his brothers town. I wonder what the betting line would have been if Vegas had realized that it was going to end up being essentially a Seahawks home game.
In short, the idea that the Broncos were overwhelming favorites is pure fantasy.
-
No Gronk, No Wilfork, No Kelly, No Talib. Has Peyton's career rendered your position on him so weak that you have to grasp at straws to such an extent?
10-5 all time.
The Patriots were barely expected to win their division this year, yet there Brady was again, overachieving in the AFC Championship.
I am being completely honest when I say I don't think we take an iota of a legacy hit in that AFC Championship loss.
What is it - besides the fact that the media has played the story up all year - makes you think that the Pats injuries were worse than the Broncos?
-
Anyway, I'm really not trying to start any kind of argument about this. The last thing I want to do is argue. I will apologize in advance if anything comes off as too sarcastic or snarky. I've written and re-written this about a billion times. I have no real sense about how it comes across anymore.Well your status update came across as a bit sarcastic. ;) No worries. I appreciate the thought that you put into it.
However I can't say that I like being pegged as "soft" or something. Hardly the case. Just to clarify, Bob Sanders was a HUGE favorite of mine. His attitude transformed the defense every time he stepped on the field. You can't separate the violence from football. HOWEVER:
Like: Safety coming up in the box to stop a running back cold in an manner that makes him think twice about venturing into that hole again.
Don't Like: A QB with a history of neck issues being blindsided while looking down-field and being buried head first in the turf.
Like: a pulling guard pancaking a linebacker freeing up a rb for a big run.
Don't Like: A 185lb slot receiver stretched out reaching for a ball and meeting a 240lb LB determined not to knock the ball away, but to knock the receiver unconscious. Career ending concussion a bonus.
I could go on, but I assume that you see the difference. "Cuddling" has precious little to do with it.
-
I have no need to do that, enough howling took place February 2nd.
And you have a nice night and week, don't eat too many cupcakes!
Oh, I howled all right, and every day since. Getting a bit tired and bored actually.
Time to resume giving somewhat less of a flying
about the 
. My life is calling.Carry on.
-
Lots of bad decisions I'm sure - much more likely to happen when you are under constant pressure.
Most striking to me about the game was the yards per attempt. 5.7 versus 8.3 for the season. Peyton completed 69.4% of his passes (in complete contrast to what usually happens when he faces physical defenses). However the Seahawks didn't give him enough time to let deep routes develop, and they closed quick and hit hard on the short ones. If he had played exactly the same but the receivers had room to run, that would be 400+ yards passing - without even considering the additional opportunities from drives being extended. Yes, a lot of that came late in the game, but the Seahawks were going for the shutout, not giving things up.
I criticize Peyton for slipping in his normal over-the-top preparation. How they weren't prepared to run plays as if they were a road team is beyond me. I also criticize him for forcing the first throw under pressure resulting in an interception, and for not running the ball more. I'm sure that he felt the need to try and make something happen later on, but at that point patience would have prevented the blow-out. Without the safety and the first interception it's a close enough game that maybe they take a field goal instead of giving up the second interception, then there's no need to gamble on fourth down at the end of the half. They were playing like there were two minutes left in the game from the middle of the second quarter on.
Of course I'm also disappointed that he didn't do something extraordinary to pull the game back as he has done SO often before. I was confident - even at 22-0 - that he would suddenly "figure them out" and change the course of the game. The kickoff return was a very early nail in the coffin (special teams were horrendous all night) , topped off by D Thomas's fumble (impacted by his separated shoulder - also a result of that physical D).
A lot of bizarre things in that game besides Peyton playing like crud. He had his moments, but he certainly didn't take the team on his back, and unfortunately that's what was required with the team being out played in virtually every respect.
It's haunting to imagine what might have happened if Clady was in there. With that alone maybe there's no interceptions, and a heck of a lot better game.
-
I don't have NFLN so in a way I'm glad, but I would have much preferred a different network. My wife and I enjoy about a dozen dramas on CBS. Their schedule was already pretty chock full with actual shows (instead of reality schlock) and something has to give.
-
Oh God.....it's as if nobody in the AFC will have a shot now again. All because the media chosen golden Gods in Denver showed their true softness in the big game finally after feasting on cupcakes all season long. Look, the Colts when physically motivated and somewhat healthy BEAT the Seahawks, BEAT the 49ers and BEAT the Golden Gods in Denver. But, nobody has a shot.....remember that.
Honestly if I was a Broncos or Pats fan maybe I would be pessimistic if my team was in the big game. Neither QB has been too hot in recent years against physical defenses that can get rough with either QB.
Seahawks are a great team but even got a tough game from the soft dome Saints in the playoffs. The Seahawks lost to the Colts, Cardinals and 49ers. But, no.....they cannot be beaten. The Bucs nearly beat the Seahawks.....IN Seattle. The TEXANS of all teams nearly beat the Seahawks.
The Broncos laid one of the biggest big game eggs I have ever seen. Everyone was acting like they were a done deal to win it all and cap off this Peyton season which since week 1 was all about Peyton in this league. And it didn't happen. But, that does not mean other AFC teams cannot put up a bigger fight vs. the NFC's best either. Not saying we win but that does not mean we can't fight better and prepare better. The Broncos DO NOT represent the entire AFC's potential.
I won't be stunned if Seattle gets another title but lets also calm down. I remember when Green Bay won it all in 2010 they were screaming DYNASTY.....RODGERS IS YOUNG.....
As for Denver I think they may need canes if they get back to the big game since they looked slower then both of my parents.
I LOVE feasting on cupcakes - had some just the other night. Tends to make me sick to my stomach unfortunately, but when they sit there asking for it I can't resist.
A couple of fact corrections:
The Colts beat the Golden Gods in Indy, not Denver. Huge difference.
MANY (if not most) experts predicted that the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl. Even Bill Polian.
Most experts are predicting that the Broncos will be competitive, but will be limited by a more difficult schedule and potential salary cap issues. Most also assume that they will continue to have problems with teams like the Seahawks (and the Colts for that matter). The only person using the words "nobody in the AFC will have a shot" is you - purely so you can turn around and prove your own exaggerated allegation to be such.
The NFL is all about match-ups - "any given sunday" and all that. The Colts would be a better matchup against the Seahawks than the Broncos right now, but that doesn't mean that the Colts can get far enough to have the chance, Plus the Broncos would match-up better than the Colts against most of the rest of the NFC. They may not represent the entire AFC's potential, but they very much represent a big chunk of it's present. Thus the early - utterly meaningless and inconsistent - predictions which seem to offend you for some reason.
You can howl at the night sky all you want, but you're likely to hear Peyton's name a few times next year regardless.
-
I think I understand where you're coming from here. I can practically smell the disgust through my computer screen every time this topic comes up. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
Does it only matter because it was Peyton, or does it matter with every QB he's gotten a strip sack on? I don't believe there was "intent to injure." He approaches each QB with the same technique.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap2000000293805/Mathis-mayhem
Peyton and his doctors know what's going on with his neck better than any of the rest of us. I'm sure he went over the risks with them and his family. They all know he's not coming out to play patty-cake.
As everyone knows, football is a full-contact sport. The tackles are why many people watch. How many viewers complain because too many hits are being penalized or taken out of the game? And are we worrying about every player's injury or just Peyton's neck? Don't tackle Ben (Tate) too hard. His ribs are cracked. Gently.
I'll be the first to admit I like watching big hits, but I also cringe when each of those guys hits the ground. I never want to see any of them injured or carted off the field, but at the same time, injuries are difficult to avoid. I was scared when I saw Robert lay that hit on Peyton, but Peyton got up and walked away from it. I didn't expect anybody to treat him with kid gloves. Once you start doing that, we might as well start up a "cuddle football" league. (And if we do that, I hope they start a middle-aged women's division. I'm playing on the OL, by gawd.)Anyway, I'm really not trying to start any kind of argument about this. The last thing I want to do is argue. I will apologize in advance if anything comes off as too sarcastic or snarky. I've written and re-written this about a billion times. I have no real sense about how it comes across anymore.Didn't bother me one iota, and I understand completely. I'd probably pay to watch a middle aged women's division by the way. ;)
I'm proud of Freeney/Mathis' extraordinary accumulation of strip sacks - the key to many a victory. Most of the time, however, they've involved focusing on knocking the ball free, not the QBs head. Of course I'm hyper sensitive watching Peyton on the receiving end, but that hit was unusually brutal, It's not that I've never seen Mathis hit someone like that, but it wasn't necessary in the scope of the game, and I would have expected him to make an effort not to hurt his personal friend - as I described Phillips doing earlier (and MANY others on a regular basis).
I don't care for big hits as much as many on here do, and I've gotten into my share of arguments about it. People get excited when a kick returner gets intentionally knocked into next week, and frankly I find the fan reaction to be off-putting. As I alluded to earlier it reminds me of the short story/movie "Roller Ball", in which competition is exaggerated to the point that a mid-game execution is the high point of the event. How about just tackling the guy? The tackler would be less likely to suffer early dementia as well - hows that for a rational thought. A crowd exploding because of a big hit as an opponent lies there trying to make sure that he can still move his limbs is not all that rational. Do people do that after car accidents? I just don't get it.
If you tackle well sometimes people will be hurt. I love playing tackle pick-up games when I was a kid (no pads or helmets of course) - I'm not advocating touch here. I just think that the overt attempts to hurt people need to disappear - before the game itself does.
-
It's not what won the Colts the game.
I'm sure that you are correct about which play did the damage - whoops.
Actually I take back my taking back. I just went and looked at the play-by-play again.
The first sack was obviously a game changer because it resulted in safety and led to a TD, but it also was the demarcation between Peyton being effective (14 points in little more than a quarter - passing all over) and Peyton looking so bad that it reminded one of the prior years first quarter against the Falcons where he had three straight interceptions, and every pass play described by the radio broadcaster I listened to included the phrase "and a wobbly pass to.............". In both cases I felt ill, thinking that some fundamental physical issue was going to ruin him.
The second sack actually took place around the time that he was starting to comeback, and I don't recall it having an impact. By the fourth quarter he was once again "passing all over" rather than just lobbing pathetic quails.
-
The more realistic scenario is that he was just wrapping him up and that's the way it happens.
It's not what won the Colts the game. What won the Colts the game was physical play from our corners and ability to generate pressure with only 4 pass rushers.
I watched it numerous times and had it in mind while witnessing every other sack the entire season - including those where the QB was "wrapped up" - and I think it was abnormal. Granted, Peyton would do nothing more than tell him "good hit". He's a big boy - I was just very disappointed that Mathis took that tack. Unprovable either way.
The Colts deserved to win - there is a formula for beating Peyton as we all know, and they are trying to build that way. When they are playing other teams I obviously enjoy it. And I'm sure that you are correct about which play did the damage - whoops. (Other teams were targeting his ankles according to the impartial announcers by the way - that's pretty classless too.)
I'm just saying that those who rejoice as if the win proved something are kidding themselves. The environment and circumstances were just ridiculous. CB injuries certainly were a factor, but both teams had injuries, and the Broncos also moved the ball just fine at the beginning and were getting the better of the game - despite Peyton being injured coming in. After getting sacked he couldn't get anything on the ball and the Colts took over - he's fortunate that the game didn't turn into a rout. When he (literally) got his legs back under himself, it was a whole different ball game. Those weren't garbage points, Peyton was coming. We've all seen it enough times to be on the edge of our seats.
Bottom line - I take exception to the Mathis hit, and to those who rejoice in that game as an extra special - or even vindictive - triumph instead of the surreal mess that it was.
-
oh god...
Isn't the goal in football to bring the ball carrier to the ground as efficiently as possible? If you can shake the ball loose or lay a shoulder into them so that they'll start hearing footsteps next time, all the better.
But you DON'T grab someone's arms from behind so that they can't cushion their own fall and then drive them face-first into the ground. I obviously can't know for sure what was in Mathis' head, but it was "unsportsmanlike" in every sense of the word - whether a violation of league rules or not. That wasn't even the most efficient way to cause a fumble.
By the way, it worked - it's what won the game for the Colts. Peyton had been effective in the first quarter, but his pass attempts for the next quarter and a half after that his looked weaker than a high school players. As a sports fan, where exactly is that satisfaction in that? This isn't "Rollerball", I want to beat the opposition at their best - not eliminate them.
-
I enjoyed it thoroughly
If you don't want to see him hit the ground then tell him he should retire. This is football. this isn't a bunch of friends meeting out on the field for a fun day of tossing the ball around.
There is a big difference between accepting the fact that he's on another team, and "enjoying it thoroughly".
I saw Sean Phillips have an equally clear shot at former teammate Phil Rivers this year and he chose to wrap him up and pulled him down sideways so that they both hit the ground gently. It happens all the time. With the penalties for roughing the passer and with the importance of QBs to the league, few mature players want to be "the guy" that knocks out a star QB, and if he's been a personal friend for a decade you would think that that would influence his behavior as well.
The thing is, I think that it DID influence his behavior. Mathis was clearly trying to hurt him. It leads me to assume that all those hilarious "kidding" comments by Freeney and Mathis about their frustration in not being able to hit Manning when they were teammates were actually serious. It begs the question, are they really that stupid?
Their being frustrated for years because they weren't allowed to body slam the HOFer who their team was built around suggests that they were jealous of the accolades accorded him, thinking that they as important to the team as him. They weren't. Mathis isn't remotely as important to the team as Luck is now either, would you be equally comfortable with him harboring "revenge" fantasies against him as well? All athletes have egos, but reality is nice too. Mathis should be ashamed as himself.
Of course there is no accounting for how people think. It makes perfect sense for Colts fans to want the Colts to beat the Broncos regardless of who their QB is, but the extra special joy that some took in it is unsettling. I didn't want them to meet at all, and that was my LEAST favorite game of the year. Why would a Colts fan actively dislike Peyton to the point that he takes pleasure in seeing him physically harmed? Would you kick Bert Jones where it hurts if you passed him in the street? Make a pilgrimage to Baltimore just to spit on Johnny's grave?
I mean if it was Art Schlichter maybe I could understand it
, but come on man................. -
Favorite play...Mathis' long time coming strip sack/fumble of Peyton in that game.
So you enjoyed seeing a Colt legend have his arms pinned while driven helplessly face first into the ground by 250 pounds of muscle moving at a high rate of speed? How nice.
Mathis has long been one of my favorite Colts, but I lost a lot of respect for him on that play - all he had to do was knock the ball loose. I detest "intent to injure" plays regardless of who's involved, but when it's a 37 year old "friend" with neck issues who's so important to the league, it's just selfish, cruel, and classless.
-
Denver. No one really gave us a chance.
That's not true at all.
If that was your favorite, OK, but I don't see what unrealistic "nobody loves us" sentiments have to do with it.
-
but I have never seen a play like the Luck-Superman Fumble Recovery leap into the endzone to officially get us back into the KC game...
so I guess the KC comeback extravaganza...
Exactly - that's going to be viewed as a signature play of Lucks career, and an all-time great Colts playoff moment. I don't know how you pick another game.
-
Taught me to NEVER doubt captain comeback again.
Don't even start. Jim Harbaugh was the Colts "Captain Comeback".
Nobody even tried to bring that name back for Peyton, and he's got more comebacks than anyone. (Not that there haven't been about 138 others given that nickname in the history of the league).
-
"Average" would be for a team to go 1-1 in the super bowl over the course of THIRTY-TWO years.
How many reading this have even been fans for 32 years? And your expectations are for WHAT exactly? For every team that wins more than average there is by definition a team what wins less than average. Do you think that those teams aren't trying to win too? Are their owners any less rich? Is their salary cap any lower? Is their fan base any less deserving? Wining the SB is HARD. I remember 20+ long years just praying that the Colts would stop humiliating themselves in various creative and unsettling ways.
The Colts run with Peyton was extraordinary, and we lucked into a QB who appears to have a chance to continue it. But anticipating dis-satisfaction at the prospect of fewer championships being achieved than ones over-developed sense of entitlement expects is just a waste of time. How about just enjoying the ride and being happy for whatever we get?
I also wish that people would stop portraying losing a Super Bowl as an extra special negative. That's just nonsense. It's not "losing the Super Bowl", it's "winning the conference championship" - something that's actually more impressive than (for example) winning the old NFL or AFL Championship when there were only 12-14 teams. Its's the mark of a GREAT season. And by the way, the ONLY team that has won four in a row is the Bills. The idea of characterizing them as "losers" instead of as unprecedentedly successful is pretty nuts.
about the 
. My life is calling.
, but come on man.................
CBS Gets Thursday Games for 2014
in NFL General
Posted
Huh? All it "gives the players" is insufficient recovery time.
A monday night game means that you have an extra day to prepare for one game, and then one day less to prepare for the next. I suspect that many teams dump the rest day that week and so get a completely normal week of preparation - just a bit less time to recover physically. It's been going on for decades without much in the way of complaint - for good reason.
Thursdays? Here's an example for you - for many games last season Peyton didn't even participate in PRACTICE until Thursday, so common sense suggests that having to play a GAME on Thursday seriously crimped preparations. There is a reason they lost that Thursday game to SD while beating them the two other times they met. It conveys an advantage to healthier teams, younger teams, or teams that don't vary their game plan as much week to week - none of which advances the idea of the "best" team winning. It also over time will likely result in comparatively lousy games with more players than normal sitting out due to injury and many of the rest not giving their normal effort. A "mini-bye week". What do you imagine they are doing? Going on a "mini-vacation"? They need the time to recover from the TWO GAMES IN FIVE DAYS. Not a great trade off.
Of course I wish that there were games on every night because it would be fun to watch, but I don't see anything positive about it for the players/teams (aside from the "yet even more money" aspect that you mention). My preference would be for dropping the Thursday nights completely in favor of Saturday night football.
With one big BUT. Why can't they have limited Thursday night games - the first week of the season, and then after bye weeks start - with ONLY teams coming off bye weeks participating. They may have to rent time on a super-computer to figure out the schedule, but with the additional income from CBS I'm sure they can afford it. ;)