Tony Sullivan
-
Posts
457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Tony Sullivan
-
-
What facts do you have to back that up
my opinion
-
His contract screws other QBs trying to get paid.
He's part of the reason why QB's don't get paid nearly as much as they should.
Cherilus is making 15 million next year, and Brady is probably worth 10 Cherilus's.
If Brady took a fair contract guys like Rodgers wouldn't have to take skittles when you compare it to other positions in the league.
imo
-
Vikes had two wins before week 16. Cards week 5 and Panthers week 8. But like I said, that does not explain the first 13 weeks when the Colts did not even bother to show up for games which gave then the inside track on Luck at the end of the season.
The first 13 weeks are easily explained, the Colts without Manning under that regime were garbage. Analysts were saying the Colts were probably only going to have 2 wins again this past season because of how much they stunk.
But really... None of that matters because the Colts won in week 15 and 16 and almost gave up the first pick until the Vikings beat the Redskins later in week 16.
-
What about the first 13 games?? No team wants to go 0-16. Colts had their eye on Minnesota the whole time who already had two losses by then. They did just enough to lose the last game. The entire fanbase would have lynched Irsay if he "won" that game. I think that has been acknowledged by just about everyone in football.
When the Colts beat the Texans in week 16 IIRC Vikings had the 1st pick. Why would the Colts do this?
note- The Vikings beat the Redskins 2 days later giving it back to the Colts
-
So all those "suck for Luck" signs that were waving in the air duing every single Colts game were just decorative? Come on now. The Colts knew what was at stake. I don't think they set out to have a 2-14 season but when things went south early with Collins and they knew they were not a good team, they began tanking. It is interesting that you detail the Pats game where they basically did not show up for the second or third quarters letting Brady rack up obscene yardage and points only to mount a "comeback" in the fourth that amazingly fell just short.
You don't win 2 of your last 3 games and only allow one TD in the game you lost if you're honestly trying to tank a season.
-
Someones just upset of the big videoptaping stain on the Belichik era if theyre trying to say we tanked that season. Especially funny considering one of those games was against their fav.team in which Orlovsky was theatening to pull a second half comeback, which makes no sense if youre tanking a season.
Even more funny is they say we certainly tanked the last game vs the jags. How does that make any sense considering the 2 games prior against harder teams we won, thus we would putting ourselves in position to miss out on Luck with a win over Jags and against the Jags we were pushing a 4th q comeback.
-
I'm happy for the guy he really deserves a shot somewhere else and the way to the Jets handle his career was utterly inept.
-
Broncos have the easiest path no doubt. Pats are right behind them as Dolphins may be a threat, but it remains to be seen. Im ready to say the Texans will have a tough time, they barely squaked us out and our team should make greater strides than theirs considering how many new guys we had. Ravens may already be unserdogs in their own division with how good Pitt is and Cincy's potential.
-
It is not a bad pick just not an impact pick. When the best thing you can say about a RB is that he is durable and hangs on to the ball then tells you all you need to know. Fox is big on having a run game so I get the pick but honestly if I am a Bronco fan, I want defense all day.
To be fair, Montee is one of the most explosive runners in this class. His stiff arm will be one of the best in the league from day 1. He's got a lot of power in a small frame. He's also exceptionally shifty. I think Ball fits Denver's offense better than Lacy. I think he ends up as the #2 and potentially starter considering McGahee's injury history. All depends how he blocks for Peyton.
-
How did this turn from Colts history to Indianapolis football history? It's not much different than the Pats moving to Foxborough, only they stayed in the same state. Or the Raiders and all the moving around they've done. Just because a team moves, that team doesn't stop being a team and lose their history.
-
Assuming Austin is gone I wouldn't mind Patterson.
Actually I would love Patterson, I really like his skillset and would be a steal at 24. I have a feeling he's gone by 16
-
After hearing about some of the previous #24's,I don't think we should give it up for anything less than a top 10 pick ;)
My actual hope is we try to trade into the top 10 for cheap.
-
Yes, that is probably true but that begs the question of why when you have Manning? Fox saw how Manning was struggling with his throws in the second half and probably decided it was best to take the kneee and play for overtime where Manning could continue to throw short.
BTW, Manning was fine with the kneel down according to Eric Decker who said Manning had no issue with the kneel down in game, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/17/decker-says-peyton-was-on-board-with-taking-a-knee/
Yeah I believe Manning had full faith in Fox's gameplan. Fox's ability as a game-manager was one of the big reasons Manning went to Denver. Manning wasn't struggling to throw that game more than any other game last year. They had a game plan and stuck to it. Ravens pulled enough big plays to overcome the Broncos trying to choke them out.
-
The Broncos kneed it out with 30 seconds remaining in the 4th vs. the Ravens, Pretty obvious it's Fox being conservative that game if you ask me.
-
Probably could have gotten someone just as good in the third for a fraction of the cost.
-
I think home field advantage is overrated except if your squad wins the top seed in the Playoffs along with a bye week.
Tell that to the Texans ;)
-
how exactly does a QB "have a game won" when you claimed that wins are a teams accomplsihment (post #29). . . you are not actually recognizing that a QB can be given credit for winning games are you?
That's just when I'm talking to AM because of his inclination to make wins a QB stat ;)
-
no I am not, I am talking about regulation and the non offense contriubtion to the team . . . is there something you missed with my post?
You replied to my post "And I honestly can't believe you would try to say Kap had the worse defense. Ravens would have been plowed if the Broncos D knew what a deep ball was. Broncos D literally cost them the game. "
You're rebuttal was based on special teams scores which aren't a good way to dictate defensive play.
-
Well to be honest the Broncos D gave up 28 points and the 49ers D gave up 27 points, not that much different i would say. And given that the 49ers ST gave up a KO TD return at the start of the 2nd half, the non O portion of the team (ST+D) gave up 34 points for 49ers to the broncos 28 points . . . so the other two phases of the team for the 49ers gave up more points . . . couple this with the fact that the Broncos ST score 14 for the team, the bottom line net contribution to the team effort for these two phases of the game is 49ers 34 points against to the Broncos 14 points against . . . . so the Broncos D+STs yeilded 20 fewers points than the 49ers . . . or putting it another way the 49ers ST+D required the offense to score 20 more points than the broncos offense had to do to win the game . . .
So we can cherry pick a missed assignment here, a fumble there, a INT here, a TD pass there, a missed PI here, a ST TD there and so on . . . but the bottom line, with agendas set aside, the Broncos offense had to put up 20 less points to win the game than the 49ers offense . . . period . . .
49ers D
5.2 yards per play
Broncos D
6.5 yards per play
"the Broncos offense had to put up 20 less points to win the game than the 49ers offense . . . period . . ."
This statement is based entirely on offensive mistakes and special teams play... That has nothing to do with proving the 49ers had the worse defense.
-
Says no hypotheticals.
Says Kaep would have won if holding had been called.
They only count when they help your argument.
-
Luck dealt with losing his OC and a lot of drops that killed momentum and a relentless pass rush ..Game would have been more competitive if Wayne and Avery didn't make some big drops IMO...
I do agree with that. I believe it was 7 or 8 drops for first downs. Luck didn't get much help that game. It's hard to say because he didn't score any TD's, but Luck himself might have looked more of a threat through the whole game than the other 3.
Manning did not have the Broncs up by 7. His special teams gave him 14 points and he in turn gave the Ravens 7 on a pick six. It is like you don't see the whole game. The niners D played as pathetically as the Broncs in the SB.
If not for the 14 points on special teams, Manning is not even in the game in the 4th. Kaep was within a few yards of winning the game but was hosed on the non-holding call in the end zone otherwise he would have won.
The Niners D was NOT as pathetic as the Broncos D. That final TD by the Ravens alone is enough to say the Broncos D was worse, let alone the multiple bombs they were allowing all game.
I don't agree with capping Manning because his special teams had a good game. What happens if Manning scores on just 1 of those 2 possesions? We wouldn't even be having this convo.
-
What on earth are you talking about? Kaep did not half a great first half similar to Manning's second half but lit it up in the second half and only had one TO to Mannings three. He can't control what his defense does all he can do is react and try to score and he did that better than Manning.
I'm much more impressed with a QB that has his team up 7 points with less than a minute left and their opponents deep in their own zone, than a QB down 15 at half that never got the lead.
And I honestly can't believe you would try to say Kap had the worse defense. Ravens would have been plowed if the Broncos D knew what a deep ball was. Broncos D literally cost them the game.
-
Whatever. Take what you want. You were wrong. Kaep by far had the best game of any of the QBs that played the Ravens. If his D bothered to show up in the first half, he would have won - by a lot.
Since when did QBs who can never get a lead, and get their teams massively behind in the first half become so good?
-
He wouldn't even had been in the game period if not for 2 special teams touchdowns??? Where do you get this logic?? 2 Special teams TD-14 Pts, 1 pick 6 INT-(-7 PTS), 1 Fumble which led to TD (-7Pts) So he attributed 21 points at home with a more talented team and cost his team 14 points because of turnovers that is a net 7 point contribution..I am not anti-manning like some, I am a big supporter but sometimes people here are blinded to the truth. Nothing to do with being a fan, facts are facts...
Who's to say Manning doesn't score 2 TDs on those 2 special teams plays? All those points do is lead you to play dink-and-dunk to conserve the lead and win games, which would have happened if not for a defensive meltdown.
Stats aren't recorded like you're saying them. Manning doesn't get a -7 for a fumble caused by a sack I believe that was scored plays later. Manning doesn't get a -7 for a pick-6.
Brady selfish and does not care about NFLPA
in NFL General
Posted