Luck Retires/ The timing of it all... (merge)
By
boo2202, in Colts Football
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I agree with your logic. But it is the same logic some people are using for the converse. We have young receivers and no Funchess, so no one is open. -
Not trying to start an argument. I'm only pointing out that you are essentially drawing a conclusion based on assumptions.  1) ........receivers are fast 2) ........QB makes few attempts 3).........the box is stacked  So, Brissett must be missing open receivers downfield.  I'm sure he misses some. But how many compared to other QBs? .... We don't really know.     -
SO your contention is that teams leave Ebron open because of his drops?
-
By Imgrandojji · Posted
No more than someone being convicted and imprisoned when it's obvious the police force engaged in improper procedure.  I guess the issue here is that I can see the world outside my own head better than a lot of people. And I know a little more about physics than the average bear, simply from boredom clicks that turned into self directed study sessions.  The idea that the balls were below PSI because the air was cold and cold air is denser and reduces air pressure, makes a lot more sense to me than some nefarious conspiracy, especially because the Colts' balls were also just barely under PSI, and we all know Andrew Luck doesn't cheat.  The way I had it explained to me is the Patriots keep their balls at the low end of the allowed PSI limit at room temperature. Throw in a super cold January evening that was way below room temperature and the nefarious becomes the inevitable. That's why the Colts' balls were also low, because air cold enough to shrink a Patriots ball will shrink a Colts ball too.  The reason that the Colts' balls had higher PSI is that they started higher -- Colts don't push the lower edge of the PSI limit. Also the Colts balls were tested later, after things had a chance to warm up and normalize  If it was Manning or Luck being accused none of us would have been satisfied with the standard of "proof" on display.  there might just barely be enough actual evidence to get the equipment people themselves on something, if you completely ignore the way temperature affects air pressure, but the evidence tying any of that directly back to Brady is practically nonexistent.  They would have had a better reason to suspend either of Robert Kraft or Bill Belichick than Tom Brady. Both of them have more authority over the equipment personnel than the starting QB does and at least you could get them on the commander clause. '  All they have on Brady is that he destroyed his phone after they said they didn't want it and before they changed their minds and decided they did -
By Coffeedrinker · Posted
I was going to respond to each point but it's not really worth it so I will just say, the fact that he was suspended and fined was not proof enough for you?
-
-
Members
-
.jpg.03c76055d967f51b813e290416ac9bfa.thumb.jpg.b1d64d49e1863163f4eefe42ad172348.jpg)
