Happy for Peyton.

[grmasterb]

3 hours ago, southwest1 said:

You don't owe him anything? This is 1 of the one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read Grmasterb. So Polian alone is responsible for INDY's Championship then? Yes, Bill played a vital role in constructing INDYs roster while he was GM here sure as he did in Carolina & Buffalo as well. But let's not create the false impression that Manning's contributions in the Hoosier State are a minor detail shall we. Thank you. 

 

Is somebody holding a gun to your forehead forbidding you from cheering on Cam Newton & company on February 7th? No. Please give me a break. And the Oscar for best over dramatization in a mountain out of a mole hill performance goes to...Drum roll please...

Didn't say Peyton's contributions were minor. But there's no basis for saying the Colts would've been perennial losers and off to LA had they not drafted Manning. Bill Polian's resume says otherwise. 

 

And, no, I feel no obligation to support the Broncos in the SB just because Manning is their QB.

[bababooey]

1 hour ago, grmasterb said:

If you don't see the Peyton bandwagon fans around here, you're blind. You know, the ones who wear 18 Broncos jerseys, or the ridiculous half-Colts, half-Broncos jerseys? Or, the ones who spout off that they're no longer Colts fans because they released Manning? Those people. 

I'm a massive colts fan, fourth generation. I own a Broncos manning jersey. If the colts are out then I'm rooting for him. Heck if we aren't playing against him I'm rooting for him. He's the greatest colt of all time and had the wildest of circumstances occur for him to not finish his career here. What's wrong with that? Pats fans are going to cheer for Brady when he finishes his career with the jets.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, grmasterb said:

Didn't say Peyton's contributions were minor. But there's no basis for saying the Colts would've been perennial losers and off to LA had they not drafted Manning. Bill Polian's resume says otherwise. 

 

And, no, I feel no obligation to support the Broncos in the SB just because Manning is their QB.

 

The Colts were already on the verge of possibly going to L.A. in 2002 WITH Manning on the team. Could you imagine if the team didn't have him? As much as I love the city I call home, Indianapolis fans are very fickle when it comes to their sports teams. If they aren't winning, they won't support them.

 

Heck, even when they do win, they still don't fully support the team. Look at the Pacers in recent years. Or even in 2013 before the wildcard game against the Chiefs. The team had a decade's worth of winning and coming off an 11-5 season and yet the game ran the risk of being blacked out locally because it had trouble selling out.

 

Trust me, if the Colts didn't have Manning, it's very plausible that the Colts could be playing in a different city right now.

[grmasterb]

2 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The Colts were already on the verge of possibly going to L.A. in 2002 WITH Manning on the team. Could you imagine if the team didn't have him? As much as I love the city I call home, Indianapolis fans are very fickle when it comes to their sports teams. If they aren't winning, they won't support them.

 

Heck, even when they do win, they still don't fully support the team. Look at the Pacers in recent years. Or even in 2013 before the wildcard game against the Chiefs. The team had a decade's worth of winning and coming off an 11-5 season and yet the game ran the risk of being blacked out locally because it had trouble selling out.

 

Trust me, if the Colts didn't have Manning, it's very plausible that the Colts could be playing in a different city right now.

I challenge you to find a credible source quoting anyone within the Colts organization indicating Irsay was considering moving the team to LA in 2002. Something not Chris Mortensen speculation. 

[bababooey]

7 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

The Colts were already on the verge of possibly going to L.A. in 2002 WITH Manning on the team. Could you imagine if the team didn't have him? As much as I love the city I call home, Indianapolis fans are very fickle when it comes to their sports teams. If they aren't winning, they won't support them.

 

Heck, even when they do win, they still don't fully support the team. Look at the Pacers in recent years. Or even in 2013 before the wildcard game against the Chiefs. The team had a decade's worth of winning and coming off an 11-5 season and yet the game ran the risk of being blacked out locally because it had trouble selling out.

 

Trust me, if the Colts didn't have Manning, it's very plausible that the Colts could be playing in a different city right now.

I actually read about the pacers in Colin cowherd' first book. He claims that the demographic and political makeup of Indiana is the reason behind the pacers attendance decline ever since the malice at the palace. He states it more eloquently but it's a factor in why one could fly to Indiana, stay in a hotel, and buy a ticket to the game for cheaper than going to the game in Miami during the playoffs.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, grmasterb said:

I challenge you to find a credible source quoting anyone within the Colts organization indicating Irsay was considering moving the team to LA in 2002. Something not Chris Mortensen speculation. 

 

Sure and I challenge you to find a credible source quoting anyone within the Colts organization indicating Irsay was considering to move on from Peyton Manning in 2012. If there is smoke, there usually is a fire and there was one brewing in 2002.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, bababooey said:

I actually read about the pacers in Colin cowherd' first book. He claims that the demographic and political makeup of Indiana is the reason behind the pacers attendance decline ever since the malice at the palace. He states it more eloquently but it's a factor in why one could fly to Indiana, stay in a hotel, and buy a ticket to the game for cheaper than going to the game in Miami during the playoffs.

 

What Cowherd claimed was that Indiana fans were essentially a bunch of racists and that's why they stopped watching them play. Cowherd conveniently ignored the notion that the Pacers simply were a bad basketball team during that stretch.

 

Read this: http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/colin-cowherd-blames-race-for-the-pacers-low-attendance.html

[bababooey]

25 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

What Cowherd claimed was that Indiana fans were essentially a bunch of racists and that's why they stopped watching them play. Cowherd conveniently ignored the notion that the Pacers simply were a bad basketball team during that stretch.

 

Read this: http://awfulannouncing.com/2013/colin-cowherd-blames-race-for-the-pacers-low-attendance.html

I'm not a fan of the Pacers nor do I follow basketball that much minus my boy Kristaps so I was just relaying the message, but yea that's what he was trying to get at in his book. I have no clue what attendance was against the Heat but I know it was a much cheaper ticket than in Miami. Similar to the ECF in the NHL last year, Tampa had no problem selling out but the tickets were like 4x less than they were in NY because of the local interest.

 

Edit: thank you for sending me this. there is a reason why i didn't read his second book.

[Narcosys]

2 hours ago, Restored said:

 

The Colts were already on the verge of possibly going to L.A. in 2002 WITH Manning on the team. Could you imagine if the team didn't have him? As much as I love the city I call home, Indianapolis fans are very fickle when it comes to their sports teams. If they aren't winning, they won't support them.

 

Heck, even when they do win, they still don't fully support the team. Look at the Pacers in recent years. Or even in 2013 before the wildcard game against the Chiefs. The team had a decade's worth of winning and coming off an 11-5 season and yet the game ran the risk of being blacked out locally because it had trouble selling out.

 

Trust me, if the Colts didn't have Manning, it's very plausible that the Colts could be playing in a different city right now.

You are completely right.  The year manning was out, season tickets being sold were at an all time low. 

[SkyBane]

3 hours ago, Restored said:

 

The Colts were already on the verge of possibly going to L.A. in 2002 WITH Manning on the team. Could you imagine if the team didn't have him? As much as I love the city I call home, Indianapolis fans are very fickle when it comes to their sports teams. If they aren't winning, they won't support them.

 

Heck, even when they do win, they still don't fully support the team. Look at the Pacers in recent years. Or even in 2013 before the wildcard game against the Chiefs. The team had a decade's worth of winning and coming off an 11-5 season and yet the game ran the risk of being blacked out locally because it had trouble selling out.

 

Trust me, if the Colts didn't have Manning, it's very plausible that the Colts could be playing in a different city right now.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that if Manning never existed, Polian wouldn't have found a suitable replacement with which to build success around, despite the fact he'd done that in two stops prior. Remember, this is a guy who managed to build a Bills team that went to 4 straight superbowls, and a Panthers team that was successful with Jake Delhome.

 

And don't try to say "but Peyton WAS there." If you want to speak in the hypothetical that we didn't have him, then you have to account for the fact that Bill Polian in his hey day found ways to build successful franchises. What makes you so certain that without Manning, Polian would have been a loser here?

[Restored]

5 minutes ago, SkyBane said:

Your entire argument is based on the idea that if Manning never existed, Polian wouldn't have found a suitable replacement with which to build success around, despite the fact he'd done that in two stops prior. Remember, this is a guy who managed to build a Bills team that went to 4 straight superbowls, and a Panthers team that was successful with Jake Delhome.

 

And don't try to say "but Peyton WAS there." If you want to speak in the hypothetical that we didn't have him, then you have to account for the fact that Bill Polian in his hey day found ways to build successful franchises. What makes you so certain that without Manning, Polian would have been a loser here?

 

FYI Polian wasn't in Carolina when Delhomme was there. 

 

Manning was this larger than life figure in Indianapolis. Much like how Reggie Miller was with the Pacers. Could Polian have built the Colts into a good team? Sure. But it's fair to say that the process would have likely been drawn out longer in comparison to the accelerated time frame we saw with Peyton. And if that process is drawn out longer, it's very possible that fans become disgruntled and stop supporting the team, especially when their tendencies are to support only winning times.

[SkyBane]

5 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

FYI Polian wasn't in Carolina when Delhomme was there. 

You are correct, my mind blended them together because he was there for such a short stint, and I think of him when I think of Carolina's early success (2nd year expansion team in the NFC championship game wat).

 

The fans would only become frustrated if things didn't continue to improve. As things got better, fan support would have improved. You're basing this on the idea that Indianapolis is a fair weather sports town, and that's honestly slightly off the mark.

 

Indianapolis is just weird culturally. They see something with "Indiana" or "Indianapolis" on it, and want that to be representative of "good, old fashioned, values." It's not so much that the Pacers lost support because they were bad, the Pacers lost support because the Malice at the Palace shattered the image of the NBA to fans in Indiana. I can't count to you the number of times I heard "We won't support those thug teams, they don't have a place here." The thing people don't remember after the firing of Rick Carlisle and the hiring of Jim O'Brien, was the huge ad blitz that Larry Bird ran with him to try and talk about how it was "our team" with good, hard working, team players. They had to completely rebrand the Pacers, and rebuild the fanbase from the ground up. It was almost an expansion franchise at that point.

 

More evidence lies in college basketball. Even through the dry years under Mike Davis, fan support remained high, though largely disgruntled. Kelvin Sampson brought a new face, but when he got caught in a recruiting scandal, the outrage was so great that to save face, the athletic director stepped down. People from Indiana just don't like off the court shenanigans. It's a deal breaker for them, unlike in most sports regions.

 

Bringing it back to the Colts, as long as the players had kept their noses clean, and continued progress was had, I don't see how attendance wouldn't have continued to grow with success. Manning was larger than life, yes, but the franchise could have survived without him given proper guidance. People need to get past their deification of him and realize he was just the right guy in the right place to make the Colts explode, rather than a slow build. If he had been a baseball player, success still could have been had.

[Restored]

4 minutes ago, SkyBane said:

You are correct, my mind blended them together because he was there for such a short stint, and I think of him when I think of Carolina's early success (2nd year expansion team in the NFC championship game wat).

 

The fans would only become frustrated if things didn't continue to improve. As things got better, fan support would have improved. You're basing this on the idea that Indianapolis is a fair weather sports town, and that's honestly slightly off the mark.

 

Indianapolis is just weird culturally. They see something with "Indiana" or "Indianapolis" on it, and want that to be representative of "good, old fashioned, values." It's not so much that the Pacers lost support because they were bad, the Pacers lost support because the Malice at the Palace shattered the image of the NBA to fans in Indiana. I can't count to you the number of times I heard "We won't support those thug teams, they don't have a place here." The thing people don't remember after the firing of Rick Carlisle and the hiring of Jim O'Brien, was the huge ad blitz that Larry Bird ran with him to try and talk about how it was "our team" with good, hard working, team players. They had to completely rebrand the Pacers, and rebuild the fanbase from the ground up. It was almost an expansion franchise at that point.

 

More evidence lies in college basketball. Even through the dry years under Mike Davis, fan support remained high, though largely disgruntled. Kelvin Sampson brought a new face, but when he got caught in a recruiting scandal, the outrage was so great that to save face, the athletic director stepped down. People from Indiana just don't like off the court shenanigans. It's a deal breaker for them, unlike in most sports regions.

 

Bringing it back to the Colts, as long as the players had kept their noses clean, and continued progress was had, I don't see how attendance wouldn't have continued to grow with success. Manning was larger than life, yes, but the franchise could have survived without him given proper guidance. People need to get past their deification of him and realize he was just the right guy in the right place to make the Colts explode, rather than a slow build. If he had been a baseball player, success still could have been had.

 

No, Indianapolis is a fair weather market city for sure. Take the 2013 Chiefs playoff game near-disaster as an example. Or how the team lost a number of season ticket holders after just ONE losing season in a decade in 2011/2012.

 

The two went hand in hand. People knew that Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest didn't have the best reputations during their time in Indy. Fans still came in droves though because the team was winning. Unfortunately, the Malice at The Palace derailed the Pacers. The thing to account for here is that it would've done this to a majority of other NBA teams as well. That type of image branding isn't exclusive to just the Pacers. Winning and image went hand in hand here.

 

Davis wasn't without success. He took that team all the way to the national championship game in 2002. But yes, the team was mostly dry during this time. The difference with Indiana is a few things:

 

A. Already established base (Bob Knight era)

B. Basketball (Basketball in Indiana trumps all)

 

The problem here is that the Colts didn't really have that much success to build off of. They had the 1995/1996 seasons where the made the AFC Championship and the playoffs the next year but otherwise the team was still largely a bottom-level team. Manning made Indianapolis into a football city. The last thing I'll say is that baseball is a sport where one guy can make a difference but in football, that player can literally change the course of your franchise.

[southwest1]

7 hours ago, grmasterb said:

Didn't say Peyton's contributions were minor. But there's no basis for saying the Colts would've been perennial losers and off to LA had they not drafted Manning. Bill Polian's resume says otherwise. 

 

And, no, I feel no obligation to support the Broncos in the SB just because Manning is their QB.

Go back & read your initial post that I responded to grmasterb. You created the inference/illusion that Manning's contributions in both the RCA Dome & Lucas Oil Stadium were of trivial significance next to Bill Polian's draft choices. It's not a question of who deserves more credit or accolades. It's a mutual alliance/partnership thing. 

 

Look, I understand that loyalty toward Manning is very intense. I myself took some heat in 2013 for pointing out that Peyton used to have difficulty admitting when he didn't play his best ball on Championship night & that as a HOF QB the media tends to view his losses as a collective NFL resume of life time achievements vs individual failures during his tenure. Now, to his credit, Manning has vastly improved disclosing publicly when he played a poor game in the last 3 years or so. 

 

My contention is what you inferred or falsely portrayed as opposed to what you actually said. 

 

Are you fearing backlash if you pull for Carolina & Cam Newton? Why? It's not like you will be abducted against your will, bound, blindfolded, thrown into an ominous van, taken to a remote site, & tortured for 12-15 years sir. 

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, SkyBane said:

You are correct, my mind blended them together because he was there for such a short stint, and I think of him when I think of Carolina's early success (2nd year expansion team in the NFC championship game wat).

 

The fans would only become frustrated if things didn't continue to improve. As things got better, fan support would have improved. You're basing this on the idea that Indianapolis is a fair weather sports town, and that's honestly slightly off the mark.

 

Indianapolis is just weird culturally. They see something with "Indiana" or "Indianapolis" on it, and want that to be representative of "good, old fashioned, values." It's not so much that the Pacers lost support because they were bad, the Pacers lost support because the Malice at the Palace shattered the image of the NBA to fans in Indiana. I can't count to you the number of times I heard "We won't support those thug teams, they don't have a place here." The thing people don't remember after the firing of Rick Carlisle and the hiring of Jim O'Brien, was the huge ad blitz that Larry Bird ran with him to try and talk about how it was "our team" with good, hard working, team players. They had to completely rebrand the Pacers, and rebuild the fanbase from the ground up. It was almost an expansion franchise at that point.

 

More evidence lies in college basketball. Even through the dry years under Mike Davis, fan support remained high, though largely disgruntled. Kelvin Sampson brought a new face, but when he got caught in a recruiting scandal, the outrage was so great that to save face, the athletic director stepped down. People from Indiana just don't like off the court shenanigans. It's a deal breaker for them, unlike in most sports regions.

 

Bringing it back to the Colts, as long as the players had kept their noses clean, and continued progress was had, I don't see how attendance wouldn't have continued to grow with success. Manning was larger than life, yes, but the franchise could have survived without him given proper guidance. People need to get past their deification of him and realize he was just the right guy in the right place to make the Colts explode, rather than a slow build. If he had been a baseball player, success still could have been had.

Indy fans certainly are fair weather fans.  Look at attendance before the 99 season

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Indy fans certainly are fair weather fans.  Look at attendance before the 99 season

And to me anyone that thinks Irsay wouldn't of moved us due to poor attendance and having a losing a team is just kidding themselves. By drafting Peyton that insured us have a winning team and not having that worry. Before Peyton we had a ton of fairweather fans here in Indianapolis. I know I live in Indianapolis. To the Colts fans that don't live here you wouldn't know.

[2006Coltsbestever]

LUCKILY we now have LUCK  Irsay knows having that franchise QB for 15 years or so is key to at least putting a Good product on the field. The years before Peyton were dicey, attendance wise, fan reactions, etc.. I have been a fan since 1984 so I have seen how fans are here. When were bad which was most of the time most of the fans blew us off. Really only 1987 and 1995 fans seemed real interested in the team here before Peyton and it's because we made the Playoffs. This was a basketball state until Peyton got drafted.

[jvan1973]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

LUCKILY we now have LUCK  Irsay knows having that franchise QB for 15 years or so is key to at least putting a Good product on the field. The years before Peyton were dicey, attendance wise, fan reactions, etc.. I have been a fan since 1984 so I have seen how fans are here. When were bad which was most of the time most of the fans blew us off. Really only 1987 and 1995 fans seemed real interested in the team here before Peyton and it's because we made the Playoffs. This was a basketball state until Peyton got drafted.

My dad and I always bought nose bleed seats in the dome.  We could slide into the good seats easily because the dome was half full.    Anyone who thinks irsay wouldn't have moved is kidding themselves.   Without success LOS is never built. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

16 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

My dad and I always bought nose bleed seats in the dome.  We could slide into the good seats easily because the dome was half full.    Anyone who thinks irsay wouldn't have moved is kidding themselves.   Without success LOS is never built. 

I hear ya. I am guessing the Colts fans that believe that, aren't from Indianapolis or didn't live here during the 80's and 90's. We did, so know the reality of the situation. Of course nothing is fact but anyone that was here in Indy knew it was a possibility unless we built a true winner for a long time. By Drafting Peyton it insured we would be Very Good to Great for a long time. That saved us IMO. Could we have been good without Peyton because Polian can build teams, possibly but without that franchise QB good luck maintaining dominance or 10-15 years. I'll add this I don't think we would've won a SB without Peyton being here either being a small market team and such. Peyton is one of the faces of the NFL.

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

My dad and I always bought nose bleed seats in the dome.  We could slide into the good seats easily because the dome was half full.    Anyone who thinks irsay wouldn't have moved is kidding themselves.   Without success LOS is never built. 

We did the same thing a few times at the Dome.  Then all the games soon became sellouts and stayed that way for years.

[southwest1]

Jvan, Gramz, & 2006 Colts Best Ever all make a very profound point. Living directly in Indianapolis & attending games in person is vastly different than a fan who doesn't live in the Hoosier State or knows the history of this franchise 1st hand. 

 

I'm no expert in this regard, I just appreciate fans like Gramz, Jvan, CBE among others who are. Enough said. 

 

You guys can speak to with authority what it was like before Peyton arrived, the zenith of his success in both the RCA Dome & LOS, & the pain people felt once he was released. Thank you. I enjoy historical perspectives. 

[grmasterb]

5 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Go back & read your initial post that I responded to grmasterb. You created the inference/illusion that Manning's contributions in both the RCA Dome & Lucas Oil Stadium were of trivial significance next to Bill Polian's draft choices. It's not a question of who deserves more credit or accolades. It's a mutual alliance/partnership thing. 

 

Look, I understand that loyalty toward Manning is very intense. I myself took some heat in 2013 for pointing out that Peyton used to have difficulty admitting when he didn't play his best ball on Championship night & that as a HOF QB the media tends to view his losses as a collective NFL resume of life time achievements vs individual failures during his tenure. Now, to his credit, Manning has vastly improved disclosing publicly when he played a poor game in the last 3 years or so. 

 

My contention is what you inferred or falsely portrayed as opposed to what you actually said. 

 

Are you fearing backlash if you pull for Carolina & Cam Newton? Why? It's not like you will be abducted against your will, bound, blindfolded, thrown into an ominous van, taken to a remote site, & tortured for 12-15 years sir. 

I'm truly not trying to be stubborn and confrontational, but I think you need to re-read what I'm saying a little closer. There are way too many people in this market -- some of whom are on this board -- who either state explicitly or implicitly that Peyton Manning is single-handedly responsible for the construction of LOS and the Colts remaining in Indianapolis. It's logical to think that Irsay may have moved the team had it languished in mediocrity and, consequently, poor attendance. No doubt the Colts needed sustained success to finally build a passionate fan base here. But did it HAVE to be Peyton Manning to make that happen, as many imply? Of course not. Think of all of the Super Bowl winning QBs and other quality QBs that have come since Peyton Manning. And, yes, consider Bill Polian's record building winning teams. And who knows? Maybe the Colts would've had even more success without Manning. After all, the guy's played 16 seasons prior to this one. How many championships did he deliver? One.

 

Let me make something clear: I like Peyton Manning. I fear no backlash because I have no rooting interest in the Super Bowl. I've had a rooting interest in only four SBs in my life [SBs 16 and 23 with the Bengals (grew up a Bengals fan), and SBs 41 and 44 with the Colts]. In all other instances, I tune in hoping to see a good game. No matter who wins, it'll be some other fan base celebrating. If the Broncos win this SB, sure, it'll be nice for Peyton, but it will be a championship for Broncos fans to celebrate. Manning will be known as having delivered a championship for Broncos fans, not Colts fans. I'm a Colts fan, and admittedly a selfish one. I only like the Colts. The other 31 franchises can suck eggs, for all I care.

[Live and let live]

16 hours ago, grmasterb said:

I'm truly not trying to be stubborn and confrontational, but I think you need to re-read what I'm saying a little closer. There are way too many people in this market -- some of whom are on this board -- who either state explicitly or implicitly that Peyton Manning is single-handedly responsible for the construction of LOS and the Colts remaining in Indianapolis. It's logical to think that Irsay may have moved the team had it languished in mediocrity and, consequently, poor attendance. No doubt the Colts needed sustained success to finally build a passionate fan base here. But did it HAVE to be Peyton Manning to make that happen, as many imply? Of course not. Think of all of the Super Bowl winning QBs and other quality QBs that have come since Peyton Manning. And, yes, consider Bill Polian's record building winning teams. And who knows? Maybe the Colts would've had even more success without Manning. After all, the guy's played 16 seasons prior to this one. How many championships did he deliver? One.

 

Let me make something clear: I like Peyton Manning. I fear no backlash because I have no rooting interest in the Super Bowl. I've had a rooting interest in only four SBs in my life [SBs 16 and 23 with the Bengals (grew up a Bengals fan), and SBs 41 and 44 with the Colts]. In all other instances, I tune in hoping to see a good game. No matter who wins, it'll be some other fan base celebrating. If the Broncos win this SB, sure, it'll be nice for Peyton, but it will be a championship for Broncos fans to celebrate. Manning will be known as having delivered a championship for Broncos fans, not Colts fans. I'm a Colts fan, and admittedly a selfish one. I only like the Colts. The other 31 franchises can suck eggs, for all I care.

Make no mistake about it, LOS is the house that Peyton build and it always will be. Yes, you might have struck gold elsewhere at QB but probably not. He carried this team to heights it would not have achieved without him. That is partly responsible for the one and dones and lackluster playoff record. He took teams into the playoffs that had no business being there and it caught up with them. If he had not had the bad fortune to be great at the same time as a NE dynasty, all of those records would have been much better. Luck hasn't come close to beating NE and me may never do so. That is a great, well run and well coached team that is in the running year in and year out.

[Gramz]

On 1/27/2016 at 6:26 AM, grmasterb said:

If you don't see the Peyton bandwagon fans around here, you're blind. 

This drives me crazy     

 

I've too many times been accused of the same.  

How is it considered bandwagon, when you've cheered for him his entire career?    That doesn't mean we're not still Colts fans, because we are.   People have tried to drive me and others away from this board because we very honestly, and openly and truthfully show our support for him. But,   we're still Colts fans...and always will be.

 

So to those that want to make me move, I say:  I'm not going anywhere soon...

[grmasterb]

1 hour ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

This drives me crazy     

 

I've too many times been accused of the same.  

How is it considered bandwagon, when you've cheered for him his entire career?    That doesn't mean we're not still Colts fans, because we are.   People have tried to drive me and others away from this board because we very honestly, and openly and truthfully show our support for him. But,   we're still Colts fans...and always will be.

 

So to those that want to make me move, I say:  I'm not going anywhere soon...

 

Lighten up, Francis. There's a difference between those who like Peyton Manning but remain Colts fans vs. those who were only Colts fans because of Peyton Manning. There are plenty of the latter in Indy.

[Gramz]

13 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

 

Lighten up, Francis. There's a difference between those who like Peyton Manning but remain Colts fans vs. those who were only Colts fans because of Peyton Manning. There are plenty of the latter in Indy.

Sorry.  That wasn't meant for you personally, even though I quoted your post.  

It just gets frustrating to constantly have your fandom questioned.    I thought I'd learned to tune that out.

 

I'll try to "lighten up".

[coltsfeva]

 Peyton has always been the epitome of class. Even the year he mentioned they were having protection problems in the playoffs, folks turned it around to say he was throwing the o-line under the bus.

When he left Indy, he didn't speak against the team but echoed the sentiment that most Colts fans felt:  It was hard to see the end of a very exciting era and to say goodbye to someone we enjoyed watching for so long.

 I don't like the Panthers and would love to see Peyton no only get another ring, but to get one because of his play. Maybe he is too old to beat the Panther's defense athletically, but he can still outsmart them. 

 Having said that, I can understand people not rooting for Peyton because if he had went to the Eagles or another team I didn't like, it would be much harder to root for him.

  But so far, this year has played out like I had hoped (except for the Colts). One more game with a Bronco's win would make it perfect!

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

23 hours ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

This drives me crazy     

 

I've too many times been accused of the same.  

How is it considered bandwagon, when you've cheered for him his entire career?    That doesn't mean we're not still Colts fans, because we are.   People have tried to drive me and others away from this board because we very honestly, and openly and truthfully show our support for him. But,   we're still Colts fans...and always will be.

 

So to those that want to make me move, I say:  I'm not going anywhere soon...

Great Post. I know what you are saying. I was a Colts fan before Peyton like you were so really loving the Colts because of Peyton doesn't apply to us and a few others in here. Having said that I see nothing wrong rooting for a guy that was our best player in franchise history when he isn't playing us. Like you, I am a Colts fan first but love Peyton as well when he isn't playing us.

[AlanNC]

On 1/25/2016 at 8:00 PM, AlanNC said:

Would be nice to see him win the Superbowl and retire.

 

It could happen now.

[Blue Horseshoe]

He is the greatest quarterback to ever play the game and I couldn't be more happy about how the season ended.

[2006Coltsbestever]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 4:52 AM, Blue Horseshoe said:

He is the greatest quarterback to ever play the game and I couldn't be more happy about how the season ended.

He has a legit argument now to being the greatest. He needed that 2nd Ring because Brady and Montana have 4. Where Peyton evens things out is he has 5 League MVP's and all the key passing records. Being a multiple SB winner to go along with his other accolades puts him in the mix for best ever now. I don't see how any Patriots fan can even argue it because Rings aren't the only the only thing you measure greatness by, it's huge but Stats and League MVP's are huge too to show how Great a player has been. Because Rings are factored in, getting #2 is huge though. Peyton has more League MVP's than Montana and Brady combined. He is the Wilt Chamberlain of Football!