dynasty13
-
Posts
1,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by dynasty13
-
-
47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
1. You are in the minority here but most Pats will do anything to try and downgrade anything that Peyton has accomplished. Just like Peyton winning 5 MVP's to Brady's 3, to most Pats fans they dismiss that as well.
2. Denver's defense was the main reason why they won the SB in 2015, nobody has said otherwise. Having said that, Peyton played well vs Pittsburgh and the Pats to win the Conference. So he wasn't exactly "Trent Dilfered" to a Championship. If I remember right Tom Brady put up crap stats in his 1st SB win vs the Rams, was he Trent Dilfered to Championship then too? Pats won that SB because of their defense mainly. Brady drove them down for a game winning FG, blah, blah but he still played a mediocre SB. Ben Roethlisberger stunk up the joint in his 1st SB as well but they won. Peyton proved he could win with 4 different coaches actually, if you do not find that impressive I do not know what to tell you. Also no way Brock Osweiler gets the Broncos to the SB in 2015. I can hear you now, well he beat the Pats in the Regular Season so he could've
. Typical Pats fan thinking. He would've crapped his pants against the Pats in an AFC Title Game environment against BB and Brady. Just Peyton's presence alone had BB going for it on 4th down in that game instead of taking sure points with FG's.
3. If it is so easy winning a SB as a starter with 2 different teams, why is it Peyton is the only player in NFL history to do so? Montana tried with a good KC team and failed. Warner tried it with a good Cards team and failed.
4. Brady has played with 1 coach his entire career, put him on just another good team with a different coach and the chances of him winning a SB would be slim. I say that because only Peyton has done it.
I'm not discrediting Peyton for his championships, nor did I say it was easy to win a Superbowl as a starter for two different teams. I just don't see why he somehow gets 'bonus points' for the fact that it was with two teams. Every situation is different...you referenced Montana who ran into Marino come the playoffs and Warner who did make it to another Superbowl.
The fact is that many Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't change teams, and more recently if they do, it was because they were traded and not always sent to as good a situation as Peyton was able to pick out in Denver. And honestly, that's fine...again, I'm not discrediting him for it...I just don't understand why it's somehow more impressive. If I wanted to, I could make the argument that Brady HAS won with two different teams, since no player from the 2001/03/04 championship run was still on the team for the 2014/16/18 run. Literally the only difference is that the uniform didnt change color and it was the same head coach.
If Brady was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? If Aaron Rodgers was released and signed with that Denver team, do you think he would have won? Roethlisberger? Russel Wilson? There's a good chance of it, but as I said, most Superbowl winning quarterbacks don't get the opportunity to find a situation like that, so we just don't see it often.
Winning the Superbowl is freakin' hard, let alone doing it twice or more. I just don't understand why someone would get more credit simply because it was with two different jerseys.
-
16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Brady has 6 Rings, Montana 4, and Peyton has 2 but did win as a starter with 2 different teams. Something Brady or Montana has not done.
I've always wondered why this 'fact' seems to hold so much weight...or any at all...for some people. What is so impressive about winning with two teams if it happened the way it did: being released, hand picking your next team, and then being Trent Dilfered and Brad Johnsoned to a championship.
Don't get me wrong, Brady and Peyton were 1A and 1B during this generation and the all time conversations will always be fun...I just don't understand why the 'he won with two teams while the others only won with one' sentiment even enters the debate. Is it supposed to somehow tip the scales more for a guy if he wins 2 titles with 2 teams than if he won 4 titles with 1 team or if he won 6 titles with 1 team? Brady hasn't even been on 2 teams...why should Peyton get credit for it?
-
32 minutes ago, Gramz said:
Yes. He made the statement. Who knows if it was sarcasm or not. I didn't think so, but then again it's hard to tell with him.
Sometimes it is hard to differentiate, I agree. I just don't think anyone in their right mind would go on a national broadcast to say 'poor patriots' right now and actually mean it ;)
-
1
-
-
On 9/8/2019 at 4:17 AM, NM_Colts said:
I agree 100%. Everything he's done since being sent to Oakland was to get cut. And now he's where he wanted to be. I just hate seeing prima donna players pulling crap like this and getting away with it.
22 hours ago, mahagga73 said:Looking at it objectively , Brown should get some kind of long suspension . Players shouldn't be allowed to do what he did and get away with it. I'm expecting nothing but a perfect angel from him from now on .
22 hours ago, Gramz said:Very anxious to see how this plays out. Just because the spoiled brat child threw numerous tantrums, to finally get his way, doesn't mean the new adopted parents will be able to control him, or protect the others from his toxic personality.
Hopefully poetic justice will prevail.
Honest question here....how is this behavior any different than Elway forcing a trade after refusing to play for the Colts? Or Eli forcing a trade after refusing to play for the Chargers? We all know how you guys feel about Peyton's little brother....but never once have I heard anyone here call him a spoiled brat or prima donna.
Antonio Brown didn't want to be in Oakland...so he essentially pulled some spit to get out.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, teganslaw said:
Maybe it means that they deserve a break from criticism for their questionable actions? (which they bring on themselves.) They already get a break by being in the same division as the Dolphins and Jets!
I didn't watch the whole game, so was it Collinsworth who made that comment? it sounds like something he would say.
It was Collinsworth yeah...but I thought he was being sarcastic.
-
Don't care for 18 games. The 16 game schedule works perfectly, the playoff format works perfectly...just let it be.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, chad72 said:
He was not charged with trafficking, so that is all I am going with. I am not blind to the facts of this case.
However Patriots fans dragging Irsay into this, when things are apples and oranges, and making it into another "Us vs the World" thing is just as out-of-left-field as Colts fans making Kraft seem guilty of trafficking, IMO.
Yes, the natural reaction of an immature person when somebody is accused of something is 'yeah but, you did this'.
I will, however, say that it isn't just some Patriots fans bringing up Irsay. Many of the national talk shows have mentioned Irsay's situation as a way to compare because it is so seldom that an owner gets punished for something. There just isn't any precedent for this, so people go right into trying to find someone or something to compare it to. Unfortunately, that lands on Irsay in this case.
-
1 hour ago, chad72 said:
All I hear from Pats and Boston fans is "yeah, I hear you, but...", making excuses. Yes, I get it, innocent until proven guilty and we have to wait till the facts are out but it also makes it seem like trivializing the enormity of the conditions being uncovered.
You sometimes wonder if their life purely revolves around Boston sports and if they realize life is bigger than their sports teams. It is also probable that there are lot of "Johnny come lately" fans that drown out the others too.
I would have been up in arms even if it was Jim Irsay caught in the same situation, as to why he used poor judgement in getting close to it.
The problem is that you are all jumping to a conclusion that he was involved in the human trafficking element of this story...and granted, the way the headlines were written did him no favors.
This could quite literally be nothing more than a case of an old rich guy paying for a quickie...the point is we just don't know yet...but come here for your news and you would be convinced that Kraft was selling underage asian girls out of the Gillette Stadium locker room.
It's an embarrassing situation for him, but to be honest, its starting to sound less and less like reality and the narrative playing out here are one in the same.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, csmopar said:
I can respect the waiting for facts. And you might be. I am as well. But there’s other patriots fans who are adamantly denying and excusing this, at least 1 in this very thread. That said, the fact the police allegedly have video evidence of multiple visits and sexual acts by Kraft, the judging can and will commence right away. The remaining facts and questions will likely only make matters worse for Kraft when those become public
I was just thinking that
The leap from 'paying for sex' and 'involved in human trafficking and knowingly soliciting under age girls' is what I'm referring to.
Go ahead and judge away that there is evidence of multiple visits and video evidence. But the 'rushing to judgement before facts are known' and the 'he must have known' crowd need to take a step back...because once that narrative gets out, regardless of its level of truth, then there's no coming back from it and that simply isn't fair.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, ColtsSouljah said:
Patriots fans have sunk to a new low: shrugging this off with the "who cares what two consenting adults do?" line. THESE ARE VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING NOT WOMEN GIVING THEIR CONSENT.
Kraft can add another mark to his legacy: taking advantage of human trafficking victims.
Patriots fans here have not defended anything.
Instead we are choosing to wait for the facts before judging.
-
Embarrassing for him and just another thing that opposing fans will point to for why everyone associated with this franchise is a scumbag.
Sounds like simply a case of an old guy just trying to get a beejer. The deal with the human trafficking most likely has nothing to do with him.
Not defending him...but not really worried about it.
-
The interesting thing is that all week heading into the Pats/Chiefs game, everyone was saying 'the team with the ball last will most likely win'.
Well....that's exactly what happened....so why is everyone so surprised? Not to mention, there were two overtime games that day: In the other one, the team that had the ball first lost, in this one, the team that had the ball first won.
Play defense, it's just as important as offense.
-
Well that's a bummer!
This has been one pretty awesome offseason so far for the boys in Foxboro...
-
8 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:
Nah, most of those protesters have no moral value. They wear vaginas on their heads, walk the streets holding signs that say explicit language and crude drawings with children present.
No moral value? See, this is where the conversation heads south.
Peaceful marches and protests by women with signs that contain language no more vile than that used by the man being protested against to stand up for something they believe it is not the sign of a lack of morality and integrity.
But regardless, and as Buck mentioned above, I am fairly certain that moral character is EXACTLY what the refusal of going to the White House was based on.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:
Oh come on. That narrative was out there long before Trump said anything.
We get it, you don't like Trump but to blame him for things that happened long before he said anything is a bit ridiculous. even for a Pats fan ;)
The narrative of what was ACTUALLY being protested was out there, yes.
But come on, you don't think that as soon as Trump tweeted that the players should be fired for disrespecting the flag and country and that the NFL is weak and has no leadership by employing these guys, that the message was lost and the perception changed? The second that tweet went out, MORE players protested and then it blew up. He was the catalyst, and then staging the Mike Pence walkout at the Colts game only furthered that narrative and now here we are.
-
2
-
-
What I don't like is that Trump has managed to totally change the perception of what the kneeling was supposed to represent...and as a result he has riled up the masses and cause further division in the country.
I don't blame the players for not wanting to attend, I don't think it's as much to do with them disagreeing politically as it is the way they felt attacked with the way Trump has and continues to talk about how these protests should be handled. As has been brought up, many teams in the past had players that disagreed politically, and yes in some cases it was a big deal but it never got to this extent. That alone is very telling, it's his own doing.
When the players kneel, they aren't disrespecting soldiers and demonstrating that they hate America and aren't thankful for what they have here...but unfortunately that is the narrative that Trump has created. Think of it this way: At sporting events, there is always a moment where the stadium honors a soldier who is home and the entire place stands and cheers and thanks them for their service...the players stand and clap as well. If they legit knelt at THAT point...well then the narrative Trump is trying to create would hold some merit. But it's simply not the message they are giving during the anthem and the way he is portraying the players for doing it flat out sucks. And then on top of that to straight up LIE about the reason the even was cancelled...I don't see how anyone can defend that.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The problem is that this White House, and by extension FoxNews, is so incredibly disingenuous when it comes to 'judging' Patriotism. The guy didn't even know the words to God Bless America yesterday, and he sure does go out of his way to praise Roseanne despite her stirring performance of the National Anthem all those years ago. The President is using the protests as a way to stir up those he knows he can...they are the ones creating these big scenes and stories and creating these false narratives in order to instigate...everything from calling out the players, to the staged 'Pence leaving the Colts game after the anthem' situation, to straight up lying about the reason he cancelled this event.
He creates issues where there aren't any...it's sort of his M.O.
...and his fans love him for it.
-
4
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:
This is different. What we have here is almost the entire team not going. The Eagles were going to send just 5 or less players. At that number, if I were Trump, I would have backed out too. It's not worth the President's time for just that many players.
Then just don't make a big show of it and let those who are interested come and enjoy it. Instead, he's trying to use the situation as propaganda to make it seem like something it's not.
I'm sure he could have spared an hour out of his very busy day of watching FoxNews and complaining about the media to give the players a tour of the white house. This has everything to do with him...not the other way around. He is still spending the time letting people come to 'celebrate the flag' or whatever they're calling it.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Archangel said:
This was not about the protest over the National Athem, This is about some individuals dislike for President Trump and his policy. I applaud the team for not kneeling last year. President Trump has made it perfectly clear if a person or persons on a team do not want to attend a celebration at the White House the entire team would be disinvited. Its sad when some individuals cannot put their difference aside for one day so that others who wanted to go were able to go.
He's a baby, it's as simple as that...he can't help but make it about him and he didn't want to look bad by having a smaller crowd there. His obsession with crowd size and how he thinks it reflects on him is well-documented. Regardless of how people feel about him and his policies, there is no denying that this issue is about him, not the team. Players from previous championship teams have elected not to go in the past, whether a democrat or republican was in office, and it's never been a big deal.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, GoPats said:
One of the problems with the media is that even false stories, retracted stories, etc... get legs sometimes. The Patriots never taped another team's walk-through as part of "Spygate."
I say let them waste time on fake game plans and fake walk-throughs.
Sure, they beat us...but that isn't why and usually when teams are pre-occupied with this kind of anxiety, it works in the Pats' favor.
-
On 2/8/2018 at 12:18 AM, ReMeDy said:
I just remembered something: In 2012, Giselle Bunchen after the Superbowl loss said, "My husband cannot throw and catch the ball at the same time."
She was right.
Hahhhha that one's actually pretty funny.
Well done!
-
On 2/10/2018 at 5:38 PM, crazycolt1 said:
Nah, winning at any cost is all most Pats fans care about. Integrity and sportsmanship means little to them. East coast mentality at it's finest.
I'm so happy that you all seem to know us so well and what our 'east coast mentality' is.
Please remember that we are talking about professional athletes here and not our elementary after school program where we are all worried about the virtues we need to instill in our youth.
-
2 minutes ago, XxGoosexX said:
I for one would like to hear their testimony. Your just assuming they will say they know nothing to incriminate the patriots. Nobody knows what they will say. Maybe if they did do something asked of them, they might fell guilty and want to free their selves from carrying around the guilt? Know body know for sure what will be said.
I'm not assuming anything. I was simply reacting to the insinuation that talking 'under oath' would be taken as truth as long is it was them doing the talking, all while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Brady already spoke under oath but isn't given the same acknowledgement.
I'm not saying anything about the situation itself, I'm just responding to about the way that different fans choose to react to it.
-
11 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:
In your mind your team did nothing wrong so explaining anything to you would be a waste of time. I thought I was pretty plain and made it real easy to understand for people that have an open mind and are not influenced by their fandom.
Just a simple question, no more no less. Would you find the testimonies of those guys under oath more credible than the testimony already given under oath by Tom Brady?
And just to be clear, I'm making no reference to which side of this I'm on or what I believe or don't, I'm simply asking why you would automatically believe one under oath testimony over another.
. Typical Pats fan thinking. He would've crapped his pants against the Pats in an AFC Title Game environment against BB and Brady. Just Peyton's presence alone had BB going for it on 4th down in that game instead of taking sure points with FG's.
Best Measurement of Greatness for a QB
in NFL General
Posted
Although Colts fans have always said the Peyton WAS the system...that he WAS the coach ;)