MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
It's a bit concerning that any of the players would have felt like going out on the town after that loss - particularly Miller after the problems that he has had. I would have probably just had a few in the hotel bar or up in the rooms. However I have no idea what "shameless" has to do with it.
There is no reason to assume that he knew "the Seahawks" were there. There is also no reason to assume that he would actually want to go in if he knew the Seahawks were there. The video reveals nothing about the encounter at the door, all we have is the word of the website who obviously took some pleasure in ridiculing him.
THAT'S actually shameless now that I think about it.
-
It's an interesting idea..........................BUT
The concept of allowing the best players to start regardless of salary and reputation is admirable.
The goal of motivating players to give their best at all times is admirable.
The goal of motivating players to practice hard and challenge each other is admirable.
But this specific technique sounds like a gimmick and it could have unintended consequences - such as giving the impression both that all that matters is skills tests, and that personnel decisions aren't directly a coaching decision. This reminds me of something from a movie.
The Seahawks have it all going right now, and it was interesting hearing ESPN last night crowing about their youth giving them the potential to be a dynasty. There are a couple of problems with that idea. One is the obvious eventual intrusion of the salary cap. The second is their coach. He's obviously excellent, and his methods are working at this point, but his team leaders are 25 years old. Last night he sounded more like a motivational speaker than a coach. NOW everything he does brings unity. How many years do you think these kids can listen to the same message before starting to wonder whether or not it is shrouded in bullcrap. Does anyone think that a 29 year old Richard Sherman making 10+million a year will tolerate being "challenged" for his job by an UFA every week at practice. And if the challenger WON what happens?
It's really pretty silly. I would think that the only way that Carrol can keep this precise model going for any length of time is to keep on acquiring quality players at a rapid pace and churn them like mad. NOBODY gets a big contract, nobody stays past age 26-7. That's pretty darn hard to do.
-
Peyton wants the attention and he gets it. He's a great QB, one of the best. But Peyton wants all the credit for the teams success. All the running up behind the center to point out some player on the other line of scrimmage is all about getting the attention. He keeps O linemen holding in 3 point stances while he does all this, which is not pleasant if you're a 300lb player. QB's on other teams will do something similar maybe twice a game, and if a CB is obviously planning to rush the QB, the RB is just shifted to the other side of the QB. You may not agree, and that's OK. Take a shot at me if you will, that's OK. But this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
The year the Colts won the SB, MJD ran for what, 175 yds on our run D. Our run D was consistently poor and our running game was just good enough to keep the other D honest. Then we get to the SB and there is a complete turnaround. We stopped the Bear running game, which no one expected. Edge and 'Nique, (Dominick Rhodes) ran all over the Bear D. Peyton was not the star of that Super Bowl, Edge and Nique were.
People impose a view on something because that's the way that they look at the world. IE: Assuming that everyone they talk to is lying because they are incapable of telling the truth themselves.
Peyton doesn't do all that because he "wants attention". He does all that to put his team in the best position to win. Legendary QBs and coaches look at it and credit him with re-defining the position of QB, shifting the entire focus of the sport as others attempted to copy him. You in turn ascribe an incredibly juvenile and petty motivation to Peyton's actions. Why is that?
-
I guess what I'm saying is: That offense wont work against that defense
Denver got smoked in August..they went 15-3 and broke a half dozen records
...and they got smoked in February.....
...and next year...Denver will return almost the except same offense and Seattle will return almost the exact same defense
From a Denver standpoint, that has to worry you.
Elway chewing notwithstanding.
Yup, that's what's been bothering me. It felt like NE 2003, which turned into NE 2004 for good reason.
I have to think that this was the one game where Clady and Miller (not mention Harris and Moore) would have made a big difference, but as constituted last night Manning was under constant pressure, the receivers were getting slammed with no yards after the catch, and while they did a nice job against the run, they couldn't contain Wilson on third down. They were overwhelmed physically across the board.
The logical answer was concentrating on running the ball and only passing when they were cheating up, but things evolved so bizarrely they were playing from behind from pretty early on. The ineptitude on special teams (not to mention the opening snap) was galling. Why Holiday wasn't instructed to simply take the ball at the 20 every time, and why Prater didn't simply just kick the ball as far as possible is beyond me.
Not being able to game plan for Harvin certainly didn't help, nor did the fact that it felt close to a Seattle home game. A perfect storm for the Seahawks, but it would take a special effort to beat them. Excellent team and well deserved champions.
By the way, there are worse teams to lose to. I haven't "minded" the Seahawks dating back to the Jim Zorn days, they've had their share of misery, it's impossible to not like Carrol, always respected their owner, and Wilson seems like a nice kid.
However two years from now when "Wilson is the best QB ever" I may feel differently. This is how Brady got started.
-
Thought about you, and a few others last night while watching the game.
Ditto. I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around it.
And the weather is ironic. The NFL is probably patting themselves on the back, but they missed having 80,000 dispersing into a winter storm worthy of hazardous travel warnings by a matter of hours.
-
I tortured myself and my wife watching ESPN for two hours afterwards, but I've had my fill.
I just came on here to show my face for a bit, but all in all I'm just sick about the whole thing, and don't care to think about it.
I can't imagine how the players feel.
And to top it off, ironically we have a significant (wet, heavy) snowfall this morning that I had NO idea was coming, and didn't prepare for in any way.
-
Oh wow.
If I didn't already love and respect him more than any other athlete I've ever followed.............
-
He supposedly reads his fan mail - you send it to the team of course.
But a wedding invitation? How exactly do you expect him to respond?
-
Jim Miller....Nuff said.
Actually, the crux of PAs semi-serious point was that he thinks former players would be better suited to be voters, and I responded to defend the field of journalism.
What wasn't evident to either of us at the time (since we were talking about the HOF and I had no knowledge of the MVP voting) was that Jim Miller IS a former player. The entire basis of his bias is that he "won" a SB ring with the Patriots as Brady's backup. Miller's absurd response actually perfectly makes my point for me.
WHY he was allowed a vote and whether he will be allowed to vote again will be interesting to learn/observe - but he isn't remotely to be confused with a journalist.
I grew up occasionally thinking that I wanted to be the next Red Smith or Arthur Daley. Please don't confuse the likes of Jim Miller with either.
-
I don't think that Seattle is going to change their defense at this point, and taking ANY single Denver receiver out of the game 1-1 is largely pointless. They need to be able to cover five quality receivers at the same time.
We've seen this movie before. The Seahawks need to consistently make Peyton uncomfortable in the pocket while assaulting the wrs, leading to a low 3rd down conversion % and multiple turnovers. Of course Seattles offense also needs to control the time of possession or Peyton will eventually figure them out or tire them out and shred them anyway, and they have to be careful that in focusing on the above they don't give up 300 yards in rushing/screen passes.
It's turnovers turnovers turnovers that scare me. They've got a great coach and some smart players who can cover a LOT of ground who've had two weeks to study. I can envision some of those amazing Peyton passes that have been floating in slow motion to a spot where only the receiver can catch them getting knocked down or intercepted instead. They've been scaring the living
out of me all season long.However I prefer to envision the Broncos pulling out to a big lead and Wilson forcing bad throws trying to catch up.
-
19th rated by who?
Well he was 17th in passer rating, 6th in yards, 11th in TDs, 23rd in completion percentage, 22nd in yards per attempt, etc, etc.
Otherwise he had a spectacular year.
-
First off, congrats to Peyton on winning a 5th MVP . . .
Second, regarding the unanimity issue . . . its happens, this why it is so rare . . . yes I understand there are many Peyton fans here even though we are on a colts forum . . . but a little outside perspective might be helpful . . . in 2007 Brady had an historic season just like Peyton in 2013 and he only won 49 or 50 votes and Favre got one vote . . . check out Favre's numbers in 2007 . . . so it happens, historic season and one does not run the table . . .
Also, the award is most valuable player not most valuable points . . . true many fans will immediately look to stats and records and blindly award the award . . . not to say it is a bad method but one needs to understand that the award is for value to the team and more specially that can be manifested in the principle of how well would they have done but for him and so on . . .
the fact remains is that the Pats, without many of its skilled positions players from years prior, and a 7th round college QB as their top WR managed to go 12-4 and secure the 2nd seed and btw the way, wink wink, on the way had a 24 point historic you will find in the HOF record book/website http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.aspx come from behind victory against the other candidate for MVP . . . so a little head to head comparison just saying . . . in addition although we had a few close wins we also had losses that we very close with three of them we were in the game and had a potential to win on the last play of the game . . . with only other lose being the NYJ only time in the season called pushing (yah the penalty missed in the KC-SD game) on a FGA game in OT when the kick was missed otherwise giving us the ball on the 40 yard line or so . . .
So in sum congrats to Peyton, good for him . . . MVP is not an exact science and subject to opinion . . . and when a QB, without many of his weapons, goes 12-4 and close to 15-1 and beats the other guy head to head in historical fashion and gets his team to the 2nd seed is saying something . . . just saying . . .
And if it makes you feel any better check out Favre 2007 stats . . .
and btw good luck to Peyton tomorrow, it should be a fun game . . .
I understand the concept of why you prefer Brady this year It's the ONLY thing that prevented Peyton from winning the MVP award LAST year. (By the way, Manning was also one vote short of unanimity in 2004. Some knucklehead voted for Vick). However this year there are some problems with this line of thinking. Look at it this way.............
In 2010 the Colts were in a similar - if not worse - situation with injuries. It took them awhile to figure things out, had a mid-season blip when the injuries were at their worst, and then finished with four wins to make the playoffs. Peyton's stats in total weren't bad (he had 4,700 yards - his all-time high to that point, Brady only had 3,900) but there was surely a price to be paid for the turnover at the skill positions. Brady had a great year for sure - his interception total of four was remarkable - but it was far from "one of the best ever".
The thing is, the Colts were ALL about Peyton by that point. The SB run in 2009 had largely been a function of Peyton pulling off one miracle after another (as he won the MVP award) and 2010 was much the same - he just had less to work with and his neck was already starting to limit him. His pass attempts were way UP in response to their problems. The oline was so bad that he had NO time to pass and no running game, yet the defense was so flawed that he HAD to pass constantly. People like to act as if without Peyton the Colts could never win a game, and they point to 2011 as evidence. Personally I doubt that that would be true of the Colts from 2003-2007, but it darn well was true of the 2010 team. They made the playoffs ONLY because of Peyton putting the team on his back and playing out of his mind with his back constantly against the wall.
Yet Brady won the MVP award unanimously - the only time that that has ever happened.
So why exactly wasn't the same logic extended to Peyton in 2010 as was extended to Brady this year? Brady didn't do "more with less" this year, he did incredibly LESS with less. Peyton wasn't along for the ride - he did "more with more". Why should he be punished for having skilled teammates? Despite his arm strength (worsened for much of the season thanks to an ankle injury - including during the Pats game you cite) he took his mental game up yet another notch and put on a season for the ages. Did anyone say that about Brady's 2010? They aren't in the same ballpark.
So was Brady's 2013 season SO impressive that it overcame Peyton's accomplishments? All I read for much of the season was that BB had reinvented the defense and running game, ASKING less of the passing game because of the lack of skill players. Brady in turn often played flat out POORLY early on. How many games did they actually win BECAUSE of him? He had three games with less than 50% passes completed, five with less than 200 yards passing. What happened to working the entire off season with young receivers to get on the same page? I remember pictures from one early game where it looked like the frustration was making him ill. MVP? I was under the impression that he was so below his norm that people were writing articles expressing concern that he was declining! I don't think that he was even close to being the second best candidate.
Summary: Manning's 2013 season was vastly superior to Brady's 2010 season.
Manning's 2010 season was vastly superior to Brady's 2013 season.
Yet Brady wins the 2010 award unanimously, while a former Patriot who got a SB ring as Brady's backup, in his first year of voting, decides to prevent Manning from receiving a unanimous vote this year.
Do you honestly not see a problem with this? What it primarily demonstrates is that whatever voter covered the Colts in 2010 has significantly more character than the irrational/biased/ rear-kissing/selfish/ :cuss: referenced above. By the way, I'm confident that BRADY has a lot more character than that - just look at that tweet from another Boston writer. I would be willing to bet that he's embarrassed by the way this went down, and hopefully he'll reach out and
the guy. -
I really appreciate the way you nitpick every little detail in your responses to people's posts. It really makes me have to think about every word I type, or every thought I might have. I'll just have to remember to be more careful in my wording from now on. Thank you.
You're welcome ................... I think.Strangely my wife doesn't "appreciate" my attention to detail with the same enthusiasm.
-
Jeeez MAC....laugh a little.
I know you've read enough of my posts to know that I like to overemphasize a point with an occasional dose of cynical humor.
My entire point is that having 100% of the voting done by these shining beacons of unbiased journalistic integrity (is that better?) rather than have a split of players and coaches involved doesn't always do the nominees justice, and this year it was glaring.
Call me crazy....but Marvin Harrison and Indiana paranoia aside, I would think that former players and coaches in general might have a greater appreciation for Charles Haley's 5 Super Bowl rings and 5 Pro Bowls.
Sorry :slaphead: you can probably deduce that I'm far closer on the spectrum of life to being a journalist than an athlete. We may live in an era where "journalists" are often opinionated 20 year olds with no writing ability, but I still like to pretend that it's an admirable field of endeavor.
Perhaps more importantly, while I've never been abused in the fashion you describe, and while I've fawned over pro athletes my entire life, I've successfully deluded myself into avoiding making the connection between the pro stars that I relish rooting for and the often detestable neanderthals from high school. I'm sure that at some point the former were also the later, but if I thought about it too much I'd probably stop being a sports fan.
Your post pushed a button.Haley? I was sick of the 49ers by about 1984 and rooted against them in every SB. The fact that he then moved on to a team I actively detested didn't help. Both teams were loaded on both sides of the ball. I heard his name a zillion times but never quite "got" the enthusiasm for him. For some reason I remember him as a specialist with the 49ers - not in the same league as the likes of Lawrence Taylor or Mike Singletary. Perhaps he was more important to the Cowboys but it was physically painful to even watch them so perhaps I've blocked it from my memory. Perhaps he deserved to get in - I certainly didn't see enough - but I'm not going to get upset about his absence.
However if Marvin isn't in after a comparable period of time I'll be picketing the league office. :stats:
:cuss: -
My main issue is more with the voting process itself.
I've always felt that these HOF selection committees, made up of pudgy, nerdy journalists....whose closest encounter with a jock strap was when a soiled smelly one was rubbed in their faces in high school gym class because they sucked at sports....is what causes results like these.
That committee should include at least 50% ex-players and coaches who were contemporaries and opponents of the nominees. In other words....people who LIVED the game.
We may disagree with the vote, but the inequities aren't "due" to your unpleasant characterization. If you were correct then nobody would EVER be elected, because the logical extension of your argument would be that all journalists hate jocks and don't want them to succeed. In actuality those are people whose lives revolve around observing and reporting about sports. I would assume that they tend to take it very seriously. They also provide a service without which sports wouldn't exist as we know it. Do you like listening to most former players attempt to express themself?
Ex athletes certainly know more about certain things, but it's also abundantly clear that they are virtually always biased to an irrational degree towards their former teams, teammates, positions, side of the ball, conference, college, college conference, home state, you name it. Plus remember Brady's comments? Players are too busy worrying about themselves (or when retired, competing vigerously in golf, bowling, tiddlywinks or anything else that catches their fancy) to invest the time in fairly appraising others. The entire point of awards such as this that journalists represent US.
-
Perhaps Harrison is held back by the fact that he played with the greatest QB of all time - you know, the face of the NFL who won four MVPs in Indy. Of course that doesn't fit in with the "nobody likes us" argument.
I think that Marv deserved to get in on the first ballot, but the last I heard WRs weren't getting in at all. The fact that they are starting to is a good thing, but maybe they still don't want to do it on the first ballot.
Harrison will have his day.
-
Looks like Ray Guy got in! Glad to see it - about freaking time. First punter ever, and he was special.
Reed has been waiting a long time, and deserves it, even though Marvin's stats were better..Williams and Strahan. I think Marvin got snubbed due to him never "Ofiicially" retiring, and the gun incident may have swayed a few votes. Dungy, though a great coach, I don't feel he did enough as a Head coach to be considered at all, because of the length of his HC experiee.
I agree about Reed and Dungy. While I'm very disappointed about Marv, it happens all the time. I'm confident that he will get in eventually. Reed getting in actually encourages that thought. Worst case scenario I suspect that he would get "swept in" with Peyton when he is elected.
Why would not "officially retiring" have an impact?
It's not your opinion. It's fact. Stats don't lie. He's getting snubbed because he's quiet and played in Indy. The MLB HOF is just as of a joke. You play for the Yankees and are average, you get in.
Marvin will be in eventually, but not being first ballot is a joke.I continually
about the Indy centric paranoia, insecurity and self-pity often displayed on this site. The NFL knows who Marvin Harrison is, and Seattle, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Buffalo, Atlanta and St Louis weren't part of the north-east mega-market either the last time that I looked. Seattle is riding their "we are forgotten here all alone in the upper left corner" nonsense all the way to the SB. That didn't stop Walter Jones from getting in on the first ballot. I imagine that I saw him play a couple of times but I can't say that I noticed. Indy on the other hand was one of the most televised and fawned over teams for most of Harrison's career. They only let so many people in each year. Perhaps voters simply thought that Jones was a better LT than Marv was a WR. I don't know enough to argue the point, and neither do you.The Yankees (well, their fans mostly) often annoy me, but their secret to success is being able to afford the best players. They win a lot, and then those players often then make the hall. That doesn't mean that they are "average". And that's in a league where the size of the market makes a huge difference in the amount of airplay that you get. The NFL hasn't been like that in a very long time.
-
depends on the officiating :rulez:
Exactly. I'm sure the penalties are a reflection of their style. They'll take SOME penalties if it means they are beating up their opponent in the process. Whether the refs "let the play" or not is going to be HUGE.
The Broncos aren't stupid though. I would hope that at the first hint that the CBs can get away with stuff, that Denver CBs start bear-hugging the Seahawks receivers and devoting everyone else to the run - while running endless pick plays on offense. Seattle may slow down the Broncos but there is no way that they can stop them. The same may not work in the opposite direction.
-
What does Papa John's Pizza have to do with this thread
Just curious If Eli wants to make a few extra shekels, he could always open some Papa John's pizza joints. Oh wait....it's New Jersey...that won't work either, they like real pizza there.
Not much - just a joke.
And as someone from NJ I can wholeheartedly endorse that comment. My poor brother has been suffering in Dallas for decades.
Can't get a real bagel either.
-
No way! He's got Manning blood. They're gods.
Thank goodness you've finally come to your senses.
-
Whatever you're opinion on "game-worn" jersey, gloves, helmets, ect.. is totally irrelevant. What he bought was marketed as something else.and he probably paid an extensive amount for what he thought was the real thing.
Again, you are still excusing a crime based on your own belief of what should be deemed a crime. Fraud is Fraud period, in any form. A fan doesnt buy for an illusion, they buy for what they believe to be true from someone who they trust.
Just to clarify, my comments are focused on Eli. I think that the phrase "possible in on selling fake memorabilia"" is out of context and sensationalizes the story at Eli's expense. That's what started a discussion that's gone off on some odd trajectories.
What I personally think of the idea of paying a premium for "game worn" equipment is irrelevant, and I'm certainly not defending the concept of defrauding people by selling willfully miss categorized items. However the devil is in the details, and there is a big difference between (for instance) a retailer systematically fabricating and marketing unauthentic products for his personal profit, or a Giants staff member systematically contributing to the same for his personal profit, or a Giants executive instructing staff members to systematically miss-label and and sell items to benefit his employers (or himself personally) - and what Eli is being accused of. The potential proceeds are pocket change to him, and he would earn the same amount regardless of whether the items are truly game worn or not. I don't see how he is even being accused of a "crime". He's the source of the value. They could relabel the "fraudulent" items "personally selected and signed by Eli because he didn't want to part with ___________" and they would STILLl be attractive collectibles.
-
Fraud like MAC said.
MAC's samurai sword is a perfect example actually.
I feel compelled to point out that you've referenced me twice as if we are on the same page, but I'm not sure that we are. I didn't say that fraud was committed, I was refuting someone else's insinuations regarding Eli by giving an example of something that WOULD in comparison constitute a criminal act. And I didn't offer the samurai sword example, I was refuting Dustin's example.
Of course we seem to agree that it seems unlikely that Eli is a master criminal whatever is going on here.
-
Would you use this logic for any other piece of historical memorabilia? If a Museum had an auction where they sold a fake samurai sword from feudal japan for $15MM and gave him a certificate of authenticity would you still stick with your illusion reasoning to justify it? I mean, as long as the guy who bought it doesn't know he didn't get what he paid for then it doesn't matter, right?
Clearly unrelated. The people bought official Giants equipment including some signed by Eli Manning. Was it a fake helmet? Was it a fake signature? A better comparison would be if they were certifying that said sword was used in a famous battle by a famous samurai, when in actuality it was the samurai's "backup" sword.
The value is that it's a real sword (or helmet). Paying a significant premium based on said item having been in a specific location at a specific moment in time is a tenuous proposition in the first place that REQUIRES a leap of faith bordering on illusion.
Again, you are still excusing a crime based on your own belief of what should be deemed a crime. Fraud is Fraud period, in any form. A fan doesnt buy for an illusion, they buy for what they believe to be true from someone who they trust.
I've read a couple of more articles about this now. The charges are coming from a collector who had a relationship with the Giants. He was sued, claims that he was ruined as a result, and this is his revenge. It is impossible to tell whether the allegations are real, but the guy is pointing fingers at the Giants front office - which is odd considering that the Giants had him bring collectibles (including supposedly fraudulent ones) back to their premises to set up a display, while naming him "Giants Memorabilia Curator". The Giants rather wealthy owners - who really have no need to risk a decades long reputation for the chump change involved - are pushing back and claiming innocence. Eli doesn't exactly need the money either.
One name that keeps popping up in this is the Giants equipment manager - who is directly involved in the transactions with the collector and likely isn't quite as wealthy as the owners. My point all along has been that characterizing Eli's actions in this as criminal is a serious reach. Buy if ANYTHING comes of this, perhaps it's that this gentleman was using his middleman position to supplement his income. That doesn't get as much attention in a thread title though - does it?
-
You seem to be excusing a crime just because YOU deem that stuff isnt valuable. Value is based no what someone is willing to pay. If you dont want to pay for it, fine. Its of no value to you. But to those that do, its still a crime. Even for the Giants organization to lie about it and certify it makes it a crime, a crime Eli is willingly a part of.
Whatever you're opinion on "game-worn" jersey, gloves, helmets, ect.. is totally irrelevant. What he bought was marketed as something else.and he probably paid an extensive amount for what he thought was the real thing.
A "crime" would be if he personally sold 150 different people helmets with a certification that each one was THE one that was worn during his SB winning drive. That's called fraud. I only read the one article, but it doesn't suggest anything like that. I'd need to hear a LOT more to be concerned one iota.
All the article suggests is that an equipment manager wandered up and said "Eli, I need to take your helmet to satisfy one of those annoying team mandated game worn equipment promotions.". Maybe it happened a few times, including once for the HOF. All Eli did is say "I don't want to give up my helmet, I like that helmet. It takes me a month to break in a new one during which my ears bleed from the friction, and it detracts from my ability to do my job. Here, I'll sign THIS helmet for you instead."
Eli wouldn't have gotten one more dime than he would have gotten otherwise, and I'd be willing to bet that he'd have been willing to pay to NOT give up his helmet if that was allowed. The fans got what they wanted - an illusion that they can resell at their leisure thanks to the teams certification. Who suffered a loss? Certainly not the person who started the lawsuit, because the only way that he would suffer a loss is if possible buyers became aware that HIS particular item is invalid, and that's only happened because of HIS lawsuit. I assume that the guy filling the lawsuit is hoping to make more money from the suit than he might have from the equipment - so who's ethics are in question again? This hardly rises to the level of crime - even if proved true which would seem to be impossible. If more comes out that is damning I'll amend my comments, but I just don't much at this point.
out of me all season long.
the guy.
You're welcome ................... I think.
Your post pushed a button.
:cuss:
about the Indy centric paranoia, insecurity and self-pity often displayed on this site. The NFL knows who Marvin Harrison is, and Seattle, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Buffalo, Atlanta and St Louis weren't part of the north-east mega-market either the last time that I looked. Seattle is riding their "we are forgotten here all alone in the upper left corner" nonsense all the way to the SB. That didn't stop Walter Jones from getting in on the first ballot. I imagine that I saw him play a couple of times but I can't say that I noticed. Indy on the other hand was one of the most televised and fawned over teams for most of Harrison's career. They only let so many people in each year. Perhaps voters simply thought that Jones was a better LT than Marv was a WR. I don't know enough to argue the point, and neither do you.
The Current Powerhouses wont last long...
in NFL General
Posted
I think he meant "Brady 2001", which is a point that I've been thinking about today.
If Wilson plays exactly the same way that he did today and the Panthers win three in a row, how is everyone going to respond to the "he's the best QB in history - all that counts is rings" comments.
For Colts fans it will be Brady/Manning all over again.
Pats fans won't like it much either. ;)
For now I'm somewhat happy for Seattle. I like Wilson and the city has been starved for champions. I just remind myself - with all the dynasty talk - that I liked the Patriots in 2001 too.