Kraft Takes Shot at Colts in halftime speech

[imapig]

Reading from 63 on is the closest I've felt to post-Thanksgiving dinner.


Fabulous!

I agree, plus I can't wait to get seconds.:dbanana:

 

[TommyD420]

I wonder now if Andrew Luck really does test the open market after this shitshow?

 

[imapig]

I wonder now if Andrew Luck really does test the open market after this shitshow?

I truly believe BB could have made him a Hall of Famer. Andrew is a very good QB, and its quite obvious when your surrounded in total chaos, and have bad ribs that is a recipe for disaster... If I were Luck I would sit the rest of the season, get healthy and demand to get traded...

 

[Beaglebay]

Imagine if Denver threw Manning to the crap pile to get Luck?

 

[mikiemo83]

Imagine if Denver threw Manning to the crap pile to get Luck?

that would be awesome except that I think Kubes would make him a much better QB and that he fits a Kubes "Elway" type of Scheme.

 

[O.Z.O.]

Imagine if Denver threw Manning to the crap pile to get Luck?

I'll pass on that if it's okay with you.

 

[gerschwedes]

Whatever you say. I'll just have to learn to ignore the Historical record - Pats 47 Colts 28.


You gotta be smarter than history.

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

 

[Beaglebay]

I'll pass on that if it's okay with you.

Why do you hate competition?

Besides, we've all heard about how stacked some teams are, year after year, and NE is rarely beaten by those upcoming powerhouses.

 

[SCC]

Why do you hate competition?

Besides, we've all heard about how stacked some teams are, year after year, and NE is rarely beaten by those upcoming powerhouses.

Yup.

The title of the "the best" is only given value proportionate to the quality of the teams you've beaten. Sure you can only play what's put on the field against you, but for a comparison close to home the Colts domination of the AFC South isn't even seen as a positive because of the poor standard of the other teams. We're technically "the best" of that division even now but it means diddly.

 

[bideau]

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

Depends on your definition of good. After SB 5, the Colts barely sniffed the Super Bowl until the Manning era, and even then, they manage to play in two and win just 1. I'm not sure what other time periods you're referring to, at least in the past 50 years. Certainly, the Unitas years were great, although I don't know how many are still alive to remember those years. They had a few decent years during the Bert Jones era. Maybe a good season or two with Harbaugh. What else do you have?

The Pats had several periods of good, short as they were. The Fairbanks teams from '76-'78 were very strong. The Berry teams from '85-'89 went to a Super Bowl as well as 2 other playoff appearances. Then, of course, the Parcells teams from '94-'96 that went to a Super Bowl (and Carroll managed 2 more playoff appearances with the same roster). Those were all good teams, but by our current definition of success, far from great.

In between, both the Colts and Pats have had their horrific periods, highlighted by the "Toilet Bowl" of '81 where the loser got the #1 pick of the draft.

 

[chevss454]

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

Are you talking about Carroll Rosenbloom's Baltimore Colts or Robert/'thanks, Dad' Jim Irsay's Indianapolis Colts? :shrug_n:

Still, I only count 3 'good' periods: Unitas, Bert Jones, PManning. Before you count Luck in those good periods you should determine his winning % outside the pathetic AFC South.

It doesn't really matter since there has never been a Colts DYNASTY.



Plus Part Deux





BTW, the Pats aren't done yet in case you haven't noticed.

edit: Also what bideau said above me.

 

[Jaric]

All is well in Indianapolis, and Andrew Luck is the best QB in the league.

At last you understand!

 

[Beaglebay]

Are you talking about Carroll Rosenbloom's Baltimore Colts or Robert/'thanks, Dad' Jim Irsay's Indianapolis Colts?

They are the same franchise, regardless of what Baltimore and Indy fans may want to believe.

 

[BostonTim]

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

Horse Hockey That is absolutely NOT what you were talking about.

Let’s review:

On 11/1 she colt said:

However, I know that the Patriots have bested the Colts way more than then the Colts have bested the Patriots.

On Nov 2 you made a wild ass guess of a response:

historically that wouldnt possibly be true. Only the last decade/12 years. The colts have ... bested the Patriots till this current period.

To which I responded, in my (well earned) smart-ass tone:

Whatever you say. I'll just have to learn to ignore the Historical record - Pats 47 Colts 28.

You gotta be smarter than history.

Shortly thereafter the ever diligent and very accurate tip roast went further and gave you the actual numbers.

Please let us know which time periods are considered successful, by Colts standards.

The all-time record shows the Patriots lead the Colts 51-29. So historically, it wouldn't possibly be true that the Colts have been competitive with the Pats.

The longest winning streak the Colts (Baltimore or Indy) have ever had against the Patriots is 3 games.

The Patriots are currently on a 7 game win streak against the Colts. They have had a previous 7 game win streak, as well as two six game win streaks and a five game win streak in the past.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Here's the head-to-head history.

In response to my post and TR’s, crickets. Until Today.

No question you were saying that the Colts regularly beat the Pats until Brady showed up.

But 2 weeks later (today) you sneak in trying to rewrite history, claiming you weren’t talking Colts record v the Pats, but Colts all time historical profile vs Pats all time historical profile. (If you want we address that claim too):

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

To which I say: "Bwahahaha - Liar Liar Pants on fire"


So let's review the numbers once more for fun:

The Colts to be fair just pummeled our asses in the 1970's with 11 wins and only nine losses. An unimaginable 55% winning percentage. Right up there with the Pats coin toss success rate. So Kudo's. Awesomeness.

But, 1980's? Pats 13 Colts 6
1990's? Pats 14 Colts 6
2000? Pats 1 Colts 1

So, Pre Brady, Pat's 37 Colts 24.

Rest of 2000s and 2010s: Pats 14 Colts 5

Why all this effort? Because you took a stand, made a statement and were dead wrong. Instead of saying oops My bad. You do what all the world seems to do these days - you refuse to own what you do.

And if you just disappear and fail to respond I'll be disappointed. I fully expect you to come back and say : "that's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant" or "Your taking me out of context."


Cheers, BostonTim

The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

How cute. That's precious!

 

[mikiemo83]

Horse Hockey That is absolutely NOT what you were talking about.

Let’s review:

On 11/1 she colt said:

However, I know that the Patriots have bested the Colts way more than then the Colts have bested the Patriots.

On Nov 2 you made a wild ass guess of a response:


To which I responded, in my (well earned) smart-ass tone:


Shortly thereafter the ever diligent and very accurate tip roast went further and gave you the actual numbers.




In response to my post and TR’s, crickets. Until Today.

No question you were saying that the Colts regularly beat the Pats until Brady showed up.

But 2 weeks later (today) you sneak in trying to rewrite history, claiming you weren’t talking Colts record v the Pats, but Colts all time historical profile vs Pats all time historical profile. (If you want we address that claim too)


So let's review the numbers once more for fun:

The Colts to be fair just pummeled our asses in the 1970's with 11 wins and only nine losses. An unimaginable 55% winning percentage. Right up there with the Pats coin toss success rate. So Kudo's. Awesomeness.

But, 1980's? Pats 13 Colts 6
1990's? Pats 14 Colts 6
2000? Pats 1 Colts 1

So, Pre Brady, Pat's 37 Colts 24.

Rest of 2000s and 2010s: Pats 14 Colts 5

Why all this effort? Because you took a stand, made a statement and were dead wrong. Instead of saying oops My bad. You do what all the world seems to do these days - you refuse to own what you do.

And if you just disappear and fail to respond I'll be disappointed. I fully expect you to come back and say : "that's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant" or "Your taking me out of context."


Cheers, BostonTim



How cute. That's precious!

Your sexy when you talk like his

 

[BostonTim]

Your sexy when you talk like his

Getting cranky and intolerant in my dotage. Especially of the anti-Pats morons who camp out here for no apparent reason.

But thanks, bro.

Cheers, BostonTim

 

[chevss454]

They are the same franchise, regardless of what Baltimore and Indy fans may want to believe.

From a legal pov you're right but culturally they are very different franchises. That Baltimore Colts team was a black and blue, rough & tough smash-mouth team.

edit: Names that come to mind...Alan Ameche, Jim Parker, Big Daddy Lipscomb, Alex Sandusky, Gino Marchetti, Lenny Moore, Art Donovan & Unitas himself. Tough guys all of them. And 10 years later they were still tough as nails with John Mackey, Tom Matte, Bubba Smith, Billy Ray Smith, Mike Curtis, Don Shinnick, Lou the toe and Lenny Lyles.

I can't say the same for the Indy Colts.

 

[Patriots4ever]

regular season has nothing to with this

I'm talking about the fact that the Colts have been good in 4 different time periods and they will be good again. The pats are now finished with their only successful period in team history

Depends on your definition of good. After SB 5, the Colts barely sniffed the Super Bowl until the Manning era, and even then, they manage to play in two and win just 1. I'm not sure what other time periods you're referring to, at least in the past 50 years. Certainly, the Unitas years were great, although I don't know how many are still alive to remember those years. They had a few decent years during the Bert Jones era. Maybe a good season or two with Harbaugh. What else do you have?

The Pats had several periods of good, short as they were. The Fairbanks teams from '76-'78 were very strong. The Berry teams from '85-'89 went to a Super Bowl as well as 2 other playoff appearances. Then, of course, the Parcells teams from '94-'96 that went to a Super Bowl (and Carroll managed 2 more playoff appearances with the same roster). Those were all good teams, but by our current definition of success, far from great.

In between, both the Colts and Pats have had their horrific periods, highlighted by the "Toilet Bowl" of '81 where the loser got the #1 pick of the draft.

Pats have never tanked a season with a perennial 11-5/12-4 team to get a #1 pick either.

Interested in seeing the response to bideau's post, so I quoted it just in case you missed it from the other page. You gotta love borderline trolls with under 25 posts just doing enough to keep his head above water.


JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT

 

[Claremonster]

From a legal pov you're right but culturally they are very different franchises. That Baltimore Colts team was a black and blue, rough & tough smash-mouth team.

I can't say the same for the Indy Colts.

Culturally, Baltimore is "Black and Blue", especially when it comes to urban rioting. Indianapolis is more "Hey, you gonna finish that corn?"

 

[Number Cruncher]

Horse Hockey That is absolutely NOT what you were talking about.

Let’s review:

On 11/1 she colt said:


On Nov 2 you made a wild ass guess of a response:


To which I responded, in my (well earned) smart-ass tone:


Shortly thereafter the ever diligent and very accurate tip roast went further and gave you the actual numbers.




In response to my post and TR’s, crickets. Until Today.

No question you were saying that the Colts regularly beat the Pats until Brady showed up.

But 2 weeks later (today) you sneak in trying to rewrite history, claiming you weren’t talking Colts record v the Pats, but Colts all time historical profile vs Pats all time historical profile. (If you want we address that claim too):



To which I say: "Bwahahaha - Liar Liar Pants on fire"


So let's review the numbers once more for fun:

The Colts to be fair just pummeled our asses in the 1970's with 11 wins and only nine losses. An unimaginable 55% winning percentage. Right up there with the Pats coin toss success rate. So Kudo's. Awesomeness.

But, 1980's? Pats 13 Colts 6
1990's? Pats 14 Colts 6
2000? Pats 1 Colts 1

So, Pre Brady, Pat's 37 Colts 24.

Rest of 2000s and 2010s: Pats 14 Colts 5

Why all this effort? Because you took a stand, made a statement and were dead wrong. Instead of saying oops My bad. You do what all the world seems to do these days - you refuse to own what you do.

And if you just disappear and fail to respond I'll be disappointed. I fully expect you to come back and say : "that's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant" or "Your taking me out of context."


Cheers, BostonTim



How cute. That's precious!

Note to self: Don't cross Tim.