dynasty13
-
Posts
1,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by dynasty13
-
-
1 hour ago, King Colt said:
Would this have happened if the Pats had beaten the Eagles?
It probably wouldn't have, honestly.
I said it before, but there were quite a few similarities to this Superbowl as there were 13 years ago against the Eagles, when the Patriots were set to lose both coordinators then too. If the Patriots won Sunday and essentially book ended the two 'end of Belichick with his coordinators' eras with 3 out of 4 championships, then that would be the story.
Instead, it has more of a 'well our defense sucked we'll let Patricia go but this offense still has some left in the tank and lets squeeze whatever we have left of it' feel.
-
12 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:
Thanks SW. Hope we can win, be nice to get a 6th. But to be honest, i would not be upset if we lost. Getting the 4th a few years ago was important to me. Still remember that divisional Ravens game, i drank like a half gallon of milk and needed like 2 hrs to decompress. And the 5th last year really put the hay in the barn for me.
As for a 6th it may be more for selfish fanhood reasons. Be nice to have this group get 3 of 4 to match the earlier team. We will see and time will tell.
I always said going into the Super Bowl in 2007 that if we could get that last one to go 19-0, I would be happy without another one for the rest of my life. But boy has the last few years been fun. I can honestly sit here and say that if we lost this game I wont be 'as' bummed as I would have been in years past...but I know that as we get closer and the game starts and I get into it...I know I'm going to want this one just as much. The team can only add to it's own legacy at this point, but I reeeeeeally want that 6th to tie the Steelers at the top.
-
15 minutes ago, Gramz said:
I have a question for you. Can you in all honesty say that the Pats didn't get away with any uncalled penalties?
Every team gets away with uncalled penalties, but you know what? The refs let them play yesterday and I liked it. The Jags are a physical team that had their hands on our receivers all game long and they got away with it until it was so egregious that the refs were forced to throw the flag. Then they beat themselves and now want to blame the refs for it. Typical reaction from every team that comes into Gillette and loses. The Jags basically did to the Patriots receivers what the Patriots did to the Colts receivers in 2003, and all of a sudden we have Colts fans whining about the refs throwing flags for P.I.? Is this real life?
The simple fact is that the Patriots earned home field advantage, and sometimes the home team gets the borderline calls. It used to happen when teams went into Denver, it used to happen when teams went into Indianapolis...The Patriots are better than most at taking advantage of those situations, which then heightens the focus of it, and because the top teams garner more interest from fans who like the team and from fans that hate the team, there is always a larger reaction one way or the other, as we are seeing here.
-
I'll tell you one thing...regardless of who you hate more or less, nobody can deny that the most exciting Super Bowls over the last 20 years have been the 7 in which New England has played.
You may not want to see them win again, but you're all but guaranteed one heck of an ending!
-
16 hours ago, dodsworth said:
Patricia gone, Garopollo gone, Brisset gone, McDaniels about to be
gone, Brady on his last leg. The dynasty is finally over after this year!
As far as the potential coaching moves, it does have a very similar feel to the 2004 season where we knew we'd be losing Weiss and Crennel and heading into the playoffs we felt that this was the 'last hurrah' for the three guys together.
I like the way that season ended... ;)
-
On 12/13/2017 at 9:43 PM, LockeDown said:
I didn't say it was the right thing. I said I would be frustrated enough to do the same thing. He deserves the suspension. However, it didn't look as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Every game has a hit much worse than that. Much worse. Remember, I can't stand the Pats...just being honest.
It isn't even as much about the brutality or lack thereof of the hit itself...it's about the intent that was behind it stemming from the loss of control simply because of frustration. That's unacceptable. It's a violent enough game with the constant potential of injury without him having to legitimately go out of his way to get another lick in.
Look, do I understand his frustration? Absolutely. But he hurt the player on a non football play and he hurt his own team as a result. He served his suspension, we'll all move on, but I don't want to see it again and I'd be ripped if someone did it to someone on my team.
-
Should have been more, but based on recent suspensions I'm not at all surprised by the decision.
There's no room for that in this game.
-
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I tried to tell some that Denver would suck once Peyton retired and most people were like NAH, anyone can QB that team and the Denver D is one of the best of all-time. It was Peyton's presence and leadership that still gave Denver an edge on Offense. If anyone watched the games vs Pitt and NE, they would see Peyton played good and didn't make mistakes. Belichick feared him as well.
The way the defense was playing then, those people had a legitimate point. This is NOT the same defense as their Superbowl year, and let's not have some revisionist history here but if you remember, the Broncos were squeezing by teams week after week after week due to their defense facing turnovers late in games. For the first half of the season, the Broncos were winning in spite of who their quarterback was...whether it was Peyton or Brock, they were winning games the same way and it was not due to the offense. I do think there is something to what you said about Peyton's presence and leadership...but everyone who watched the Broncos that season new their success was based 98% on their defense.
I'd have to go back and check, but I remember watching those games and it seemed like every single week the Broncos were set to lose and then their defense would intercept the ball in the end zone to steal it, or there would be some crazy fumble return to close it out or another interception, always seeming to happen under the 2 minute warning as the opponent was driving to win.
It never mattered who was playing quarterback that season, Brock won the same way that Peyton won, and it ended up being a winning formula that gave us the rare defensive Superbowl MVP.
-
13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I got GoPats back, he is cool. I remember when I was on ESPN chatting years ago, I got along with most Pats fans. That was back in the Peyton vs Brady days. Some of the Pats fans are obnoxious but that doesn't make a whole fan base.
Every fan base has the same good and bad fans. Success breeds arrogance and thus contempt, so there has certainly been a lot of that going on. Couple that with the rise of message boards and increased fan interaction during this Patriots run, and opposing fans have a heck of a lot more exposure to it than they would have in the old days.
-
1 hour ago, Gramz said:
One last thought..... before heading off to work.
One of the biggest pleasures of watching the Pats lose, Pat's fans are normally scarce around here the next day
Not a very fun game to watch last night for us up here...Brady looked terrible all night and the team just didn't seem to have any emotional lift and it almost felt like they gave up.
Enjoy the smile it brought you, I'm a little worried about putting that defense out there against Drew Brees next week so you may get to enjoy it a little longer!!!
-
The NFL dynasties have pretty much been defined by decade thus far:
The 60's had Green Bay
The 70's had Pittsburgh
The 80's had San Francisco
The 90's had Dallas
The 00's had New England
The 10's have...I guess it would be New England again.
It will be interesting to see who breaks through in the 20's...
-
9 hours ago, southwest1 said:
I wish NFL Network would do a show on the criteria for creating a SB ring. Is there a standard layout & owners who win SBs get to enhance a basic platform design? Who gets to brainstorm ideas with Tiffany's beyond the owner? Is the HC allowed to offer commentary? The QB?
Are say 3 design options given & integral staff members & elite players allowed to vote on the one they like the best? Or are all players left totally in the dark for maximum intrigue & surprise?
Ever since I was a little kid, I've wanted a key into the restricted area pulling back the curtain of modern mysteries I guess. I like watching the process of how stuff gets created from an idea to shiny bling in the end.
Sidenote: After I get a window into SB ring creation, my next thing would be how Oscar winning films are chosen by the Academy of Motion Pictures too. I just saw Manchester By The Sea yesterday. A worthless film & there's no way in hades Casey Affleck should have won a golden statue. Are you kidding me? SMH. Total garbage IMO. End rant.
SW...take a look ;)
-
10 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
Easy fellas. The Giants actually won twice, but that doesn't really make them the big brother since NE has won more than twice that amount.
Maybe NY is a bigger city with more people, but Boston has enjoyed more sports success than just about any city in the country in the past 15 or so years.
Now let's touch gloves and get back to your corners. Fight's over.
Wow, what a total brain fart! I completely wasn't even counting the Giants...whoops! I guess I did better than I thought getting those two Superbowls out of my head ;)
-
8 minutes ago, bababooey said:
Everyone outside of the area sees it too. One city is the center of the world, the other a great regional city. Great sports teams, no doubt. But nobody forgets how athletes like Joel Ward, Adam Jones, or the Senators get treated there by racist, garbage throwing fans.
No doubt every city has its bad fans, and up here there is an unfortunate history of poor race relations that goes back further than within the sports context. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...and for some reason you are feeling compelled to use it to talk down on the place that was good enough for you to live in and learn in, but now that you've left it has apparently fallen so far down that only the scum of the earth still live here.
7 minutes ago, bababooey said:You being a member here, on a Colts forum, that only comes in to defend or gloat about the Pats on a random Tuesday morning is a perfect example as well.
And please, I've been a member of this forum for over a decade. I'm not gloating about anything 'on a random Tuesday'...I'm responding in a thread talking about the hidden symbolism in many championship rings. I didn't rush here and post a picture of the Patriots ring and disparage anyone...a Colts fan started a topic about the ring's symbolism and I chose to contribute. I apologize if that offended you in any way.
-
7 minutes ago, bababooey said:
Not really, since I have lived in both areas my whole life.
Well that seals it, I guess!
-
5 minutes ago, bababooey said:
New York City, obviously.
So....you're saying that the fact the Patriots put symbolism in their championship rings is proof that the city is overcompensating for their desire to be like New York? That we somehow have a big brother complex even though a generation and a half have now grown up literally seeing New York's 37 teams collectively win once?
That's a bit of a stretch, bud. I know you've spent some time here, but your expertise on the area is a bit dated...
-
1 minute ago, bababooey said:
Boston's little brother syndrome.
Who's the older sibling?
-
15 hours ago, King Colt said:
The Pats last SB ring has 283 diamonds in them for the 28-3 comeback. Cheesey? In your face? Or OK?
I don't think it's cheesy or a troll job, honestly. A lot of teams put some additional symbolism in their championship rings...many times it has to do with diamond count. The Patriots' 2004 rings have 21 diamonds around the logo to represent their winning streak that season, I think one of their others had a certain number of diamonds representing their home win streak at the time...stuff like that.
If I remember correctly, I think the Colts ring had a red rivet or something on the horse shoe to represent blood and leaving it all out on the field.
It's a nice way to add a bit of a personal touch to the bond of a championship team and what it means.
-
7 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
i still think seattle should have ran it
nothing will ever change that
Yup, they probably should have.
But that's just one play in a game full of critical moments. You can say they should have ran it, I can say they shouldn't have even made the clown catch that put them there. Both plays are just part of the larger narrative that is the game.
-
18 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
what a shock, patriots fans dont like people calling this a choke
everyone has pretty much made up their mind about this, and it is a matter of opinion
What it comes down to is that some people want to undermine the efforts of the team and their comeback in order to justify just how it's possible that they won another championship. Could the outcome have been different should a different play have been called? Sure. Is it likely? Sure. Could the Patriots still have won if things were called differently? Sure, that is also a possibility. You can't assume anything in this game.
The fact is that in both cases, the team fought back from the two biggest deficits in Superbowl history to make it a game. That alone is a big deal, and in no way should be put on the back burner to the fact that there was a more probably path in defeat. It's very easy to say the Patriots 'should have' lost. There are other games where I could make a case that the Patriots 'should have' won. But that's why they play. It has nothing to do with a little brother complex, we've been on top of the sports world for over a decade and we have come to take it for granted. We realize that we aren't likely to see another run like this, so it's important to us as fans to see this team gets the credit it deserves. No more, no less.
-
12 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Pete's call was the worst call in SB history and not running Lynch was beyond boneheaded. It doesn't matter what chain of events happened before that play call, the plays leading up to the play call have the nothing to do with the play and play call itself. I could sit here and say the Onside Kick that the Saints got ultimately lead to Peyton's INT in the SB then. Because had the Colts got that instead and scored than Peyton would've never been put in a situation where he was behind and forcing the issue to try and tie the game late. I could make a strong argument had the Colts got that kick they would've won fairly easily had they scored because the Colts would've been up 17-6 at that point instead of down 13-10. Having said that all of that, the Onside Kick had nothing to do with Peyton's decision to throw to Wayne and get picked is my point.
Valid point to an extent...but at the same time, many many football games come down to one play here, one play there, one call this way, one call that way. You can look at any result of any game ever and question why a decision was made, but by doing that you are also making the case that a different result was guaranteed should they have made said decision.
What if the Seahawks decided to run the ball there and the handoff was bad, or Lynch got popped and fumbled the ball. Is that not a possible outcome as well? Then the narrative is "everyone in the world knew they were going to run the ball, that was too predictable and the Patriots were ready for it". We are all just 'assuming' that Lynch gets into the endzone if the play call was different....but weirder things have happened, and sometimes we as fans are just left shaking our heads at what we just witnessed.
But when people try to make the case that the Patriots were 'gifted' 2 Superbowls, it undermines the job they did clawing back from the two biggest deficits in Superbowl history. I've said this before and ill say it again: the Patriots could very easily have 7 Championships right now, and they could very easily have zero. One play here, one play there, one penalty here, one play call there...sometime's that's the only difference in the game when the two best teams in the league are battling for the title.
-
15 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:
So players are basically just bound to their previous contracts? Guess that makes the most sense to safe guard teams etc. I just wondered if it was that simple...
Right. Otherwise players could just 'retire' at will and become a free agent whenever they wanted.
-
10 hours ago, Superman said:
They may be getting a high pick if something happens between the Saints and Malcolm Butler.
If he goes to the Saints we will most likely be getting our #32 back...but we'll see.
-
7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
So 2 of the super bowls won by the Patriots were not gift wrapped by Seattle and Atlanta?
Nobody 'gift wraps' a game. Sometimes a championship comes down to one play at the end, sometimes the games are over by halftime. I always get a good chuckle when people try to make this case about the Seattle game. "Oh the Patriots had no business winning that game, Seattle gave it to them at the end!" Please...Seattle had no business even being there, it took that crazy bounce off the leg couch. But thats the game. That's why they play. That's why we watch.
The Patriots right now could very easily have 7 titles, they right now could very easily have 0. But each time the game has come down to a few critical plays, a few critical decisions, a few critical bounces. Not once has the trophy been gift wrapped.
The Character of Kraft and Belichick
in NFL General
Posted
I love the 'under oath' part of this response.
Not to get into all this again, but why are you waiting on pins and needles to hear from those guys 'under oath' while completely dismissing what we heard from Tom Brady while 'under oath'? Do their comments 'under oath' hold more credibility somehow than Tom Brady's comments 'under oath'?
Because right now you are taking circumstantial evidence and assumed intent of a few text messages over the 'under oath' testimony of the one supposedly involved. I mean, if the 'under oath' testimony is the be all end all, why ignore the one that's already been made?!??