32f2440fbe2a4579ebf7…

georgej on January 22, 2007 at 5:11 AM

Denver’s streets still turn into ghost towns, even during the regular season. But lately we’ve been let down toooo much, 7 & 2 early and nothing, not even a wild-card.

The broncos have been sold to a company in the Philippines ..
Their new name ? The Manila Folders

Centerfire, you are a huge Pats fan. That’s great. But being a huge Pats fan doesn’t give you a free-pass to be an abrasive douche bag. Right now you’re acting like a douche bag. Lighten up Francis. There’s always next year.

Gotta go check Texas news..praise Allah….praise Allah…….Geez…outta beer…gotta run to the store too.

Limerick on January 22, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Actually it sounds more like you’re trying to rehabilitate Manning’s reputation by tearing down Brady, suggesting that Brady’s past successes owe substantially to having a blue-chip kicker to work with.

Okay, look, maybe I should’ve used more smilies in my first post. I thought we were having a friendly discussion here with a little smacktalk, and you’re calling people morons and retards. Whatever the case–I have no desire to tear down Brady’s rep and no need to rehabilitate Manning’s. He did that all on his own last night. The offensive line was nowhere to be found in the first half; when they gave him protection in the second, he came through. And sorry, but yeah, a lot of the Patriots’ success in the past *is* owed to the kicker. Yes, Brady got them into position, but I’m saying now that when the Colts have come from behind for the win, more often than not it’s been because Manning drove all the way down, not put his kicker in good position. Obviously that may change with Vinatieri’s arrival.

To the extent that’s the case, is it not fair to point out that Manning’s past failures have come in spite of him being surrounded by significantly more offensive talent than Brady has ever been, at any point in his career?

We still rate his “failures” on very different scales. You’re putting all your eggs into the “no Super Bowl” whereas I’m saying the Colts nevertheless have a very impressive record with him at QB. I simply think he’s at least as good, possibly better, than Brady as an all-around QB. You disagree. Fine. Time will tell for sure. I’m done at this point, because calling names over football opinions is taking football far too seriously.

Just in case anyone is interested…now that Parcels is gone…would somebody PLEASE make a bid on T.O. and Jones?

Limerick on January 22, 2007 at 5:07 PM

How many beers have you downed so far today?

csdeven on January 22, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Passive aggressive, much?

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 5:20 PM

What? You got stock in the team? A relative on the bench?

You focus on your facts and I focus on mine. Everyone has their own opinion and I see no reason to throw a tantrum and call people names.

After all, it’s JUST a football game.

Yep. Pats crushed. Absolutely steamrolled. Never even were in the game.

(If I’m going to babysit retards, I expect a living wage.)

Because getting into field-goal range is the only job of the QB that matters?

Sometimes, yes. If you need a field goal to tie or win the game, then getting the team into field goal range is the only job of the QB that matters.

I’m saying *you* are, in praising Brady.

Actually it sounds more like you’re trying to rehabilitate Manning’s reputation by tearing down Brady, suggesting that Brady’s past successes owe substantially to having a blue-chip kicker to work with.

To the extent that’s the case, is it not fair to point out that Manning’s past failures have come in spite of him being surrounded by significantly more offensive talent than Brady has ever been, at any point in his career?

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Awwwwww…wadda madder? Stwuk a nerve did we? You need to figure out a more mature way to express your thoughts, because the ad hominum attack is the tool of those who have nothing constructive to add.

I never read a quote from Jonny U, Montana, Elway, Young or Manning, that bemoaned the amount of time left on the clock as an excuse for another team 8itch-slapping him. Bradey was soundly beat. Period.

BTW I want to apologize to all Pats fans that the COWBOYS have been to 8 StuperBores. Sorry. We cheated.

Sure, the game was a nail biter, the winning touchdown with seconds to go, leading to an impressive record comeback win in a championship game. And, frankly, I was glued to my lazyboy there at the end.

But, football is a game of DOMINANCE. Not a game of “squeakers” with the clock running down.
Sure, the Colts won (and winning is EVERYTHING, as Lombardi once said) — in a squeaker — because of a last minute touchdown and an interception of a desperation pass with just seconds to go. In all fairness, that game could have gone either way, it was that close.

The Bears, on the other hand, kicked the crap out of the Saints. It became “close” only once when the Saints came within 2 points — and then it became 4 points as they got “safety-ed” and from that point on, NO wasn’t in the game.

So, let me summarize all of the above.

(wait for it)

It sounds to me like he was pretty whipped.

Then you’re a moron. He was quite obviously talking about the difficulty of punching in go-ahead TD with so little time left, not admitting, “PEYTON PWNZ0R3D US!!”

Seriously, if you think that game was a blowout by the Colts rather than a closely-contested thing right down to the wire, you either weren’t watching or you’re an idiot.

No, I mean Brady. Without Brady running the offense, Vinatieri is sipping Gatorade on the sidelines as time expires, the team having never gotten into field goal range.

Because getting into field-goal range is the only job of the QB that matters?

I’m shocked. No, really.

Be nice, now, I was conceding you a point.

Last week’s game against Baltimore, where Vinatieri scored all of the Colts’ points, would seem to militate against that argument.

Aggregate, I said. I’m aware of last week’s game, and I’m not discounting Vinatieri. I’m saying *you* are, in praising Brady.

What does it say about Manning that he heretofore hasn’t been able to win a Super Bowl despite having an entire corps of blue-chip receivers the likes of which Tom Brady only dreams about being able to throw to?

It says something. I’m not unaware of it. But those guys aren’t perfect either. Neither is Manning. But neither is Brady, and saying that Manning isn’t even in Brady’s class is simply nonsense.

Centerfire on January 22, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Ask Brady. Here is what Brady was thinking with 24 seconds left in the game….

“You’re backed up and time was an issue,” Brady said. “It’s not like you have 2 minutes and 30 seconds. You have a minute or less. … It’s tough.”

It sounds to me like he was pretty whipped.

the Colts walloped the daylights out of them

Evidently a four-point come-from-behind win that wasn’t a sure thing with 24 seconds left to play is “walloping the daylights” out of someone, in Indianapolis.

Don’t you mean Vinatieri?

No, I mean Brady. Without Brady running the offense, Vinatieri is sipping Gatorade on the sidelines as time expires, the team having never gotten into field goal range.

I admit it, I am a marginal football fan

I’m shocked. No, really.

I’ll still be here when he *does* have three rings

Keep hope alive.

and he’ll have earned them with a lot less aggregate help from Vinatieri than Brady needed.

Last week’s game against Baltimore, where Vinatieri scored all of the Colts’ points, would seem to militate against that argument. But let’s say it’s true, and the biggest reason Brady won all those Super Bowls because he had a blue-chip kicker. What does it say about Manning that he heretofore hasn’t been able to win a Super Bowl despite having an entire corps of blue-chip receivers the likes of which Tom Brady only dreams about being able to throw to? Or does the “aggregate help” that Manning gets from guys like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne not count?