16-0

[jiminphilly]

I don't think it fosters anything. In fact I'll call you out for using the word underwhelming. Winning 1 Super Bowl in a 10 year span is far from underwhelming. I'd take 1 Super Bowl victory for the Eagles over a 10 year span as opposed to their frequent post-season appearances with no hardware to show at the end of it.

You're going to call me out on a word? Me? Do you plan on doing so using the word in its proper context or are we going to be subjected to your usual "McNabb sucks and Reid is a fat drunken slob"? Care to link that one up?

Stop your whining. When exactly were the Eagles the "odds on favorite" to win the Super Bowl heading into the post-season? When exactly did Phillie have a 1st Rd Bye and get fucked in the ass in their first playoff game? Has Phillie actually lost their 1st playoff game this decade or have they always moved on to the next round? Hmmmmm? Who has a better post season record this decade, Phillie or Indy?

Don't act so surprised about being called out for your use of the word underwhelming to describe a team that's won a Super Bowl in the past 5 years. For all the past failures the Colts have had as you so eloquently described, they won the SB and it's 1 more than the Eagles have won in their entire history. So what do the fuck does a "better post season record" mean if you don't have at least one Super Bowl victory to claim as a measure of your greatness? Do the Buffalo Bills get any more respect because they appeared in 4 straight Super Bowls or are they a bit of a laughing stock because they choked each time? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I said this in a prior thread and I'll say it again- arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless because you do not know what it's like to see your team fail, year after year especially when those losses are the result of the same mistakes made by players and coaches alike. The Eagles are the epitomy of an underwhelming team because while they're not always pegged as the "odds on favorite" they're generally thought of as a team that's always in a mix to get to the SB and yet the more things change the more they stay the same and the Eagles are still without one of these..

Good bye, jim. Nice chat as per usualm.

I really hate it when people try to end what they feel is a death-blow like post with a whimpy good-bye.. seems more like you're reaching for:

[Diogenes]

...arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless because you do not know what it's like to see your team fail, year after year especially when those losses are the result of the same mistakes made by players and coaches alike.

What he said.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless .

Way to tell me right off the bat you're about to fail with an apples to oranges analogy, you fat drunken slob.

My take was clearly limited to this decade. You were clearly unable to separate your response from your team's entire history. That's your fucking problem.

Furthermore... and this is very important because of how you’ve completely failed with the juxtaposition of your reply = the Eagles have never been the team to beat heading into the post-season this decade. They are who we thought they are. Right? However. The Colts have been... numerous times. And failed.

The one time they did win it all was a year they didn't have a first round bye, which only further reinforces my greater point about lax play down the stretch in "meaningless games" and its likely consequences. That was the initial talking point you were responding to, was it not?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The thing that pisses me off most about the Boston media/fans hypocritical reaction to the Colts laying down is their lack of foresight when justifying the Patriots doing the same thing this week.

Hey tards, did you ever stop to think that the team NE is playing in week 17 may be the same fucking team they may face in the first round of the fucking playoffs? So. Let’s just sit Brady and other important starters, let Houston beat the fuck out of us, and then get trounced by them the following week. Again.

Every fucking take with regard to this year’s playoffs is about who we’d rather face in the Divisional Rd, San Diego or Indy. You can’t defend the fucking pass, you have no pass rush, and you’re going to let a pass-happy team like Houston possibly be your first playoff opponent?

Uhm, hello? You may not even make it to the Divisional Rd.

[jiminphilly]

arguing with fans like yourself who have had the privilege of watching their team win a SB is pointless .

Way to tell me right off the bat you're about to fail with an apples to oranges analogy, you fat drunken slob.

My take was clearly limited to this decade. You were clearly unable to separate your response from your team's entire history. That's your fucking problem.

The Eagles have the MOST postseason appearances of ANY team over the past 10 years. They have 1 pathetic Super Bowl appearance to show for it. Take your stupid take and shove it up your ass.


Furthermore... and this is very important because of how you’ve completely failed with the juxtaposition of your reply = the Eagles have never been the team to beat heading into the post-season this decade. They are who we thought they are. Right? However. The Colts have been... numerous times. And failed. And yet you then say

The one time they did win it all was a year they didn't have a first round bye, which only further reinforces my greater point about lax play down the stretch in "meaningless games" and its likely consequences. That was the initial talking point you were responding to, was it not? Not even close. I called you for your use of the word underwhelming when describing the Colts. The crux of your arguement being the use of the words "odds on favorite" which unto itself is meaningless when it comes to the NFL playoffs where (recent) history has shown that the word "favorite" has absolutely NO meaning when it comes to who will win the Super Bowl. But I digress. Team A has played in more postseason games than any other team in the NFL over the past 10 years and has 0 SB victories to show for it and Team B has had similiar results but in their lone SB appearance came away with a victory... and yet you think the Colts are more deserving of the word underwhelming just because they were more heavily favored? Are you that fucking stupid? Though never the "odds on favorite to win the SB, the Eagles have been picked, more than any other NFC team to at least represent their Conf in the SB and yet despite all of those post season appearances they've been in 1 SB. 1. That is the very definition of underwhelming.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Learn how to effectively craft a fucking reply, you fat drunken slob.

According to your shitty fucking response, I added to my own post and you posted nothing. Or was nothing what you were shooting for?

[jiminphilly]

Learn how to effectively craft a fucking reply, you fat drunken slob.

According to your shitty fucking response, I added to my own post and you posted nothing. Or was nothing what you were shooting for?

Christ you're a pussy. Fuck you and you format sensitivities. There's a reason I didn't put much effort into this thread and it's because your take was bullshit from the start. Don't like it? Fuck off.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

There's a reason I didn't put much effort into this thread.

Hmmmm.... Sig worthy. I'll let someone else claim it. I doubt I can carry much more than your over-sized pelt out of this thread.

So... you were shooting for nothing. Much like the Eagles, your performance turned out to be exactly as anticipated.

[Paul]

ucunt's "Holier Than Thou" board persona is comical at best, Jim....just let utard kick his own ass and move on. Believe me, he's not worth it.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I drop one over-sized pelt reference and Puffy Coat hauls ass out of King Buffet to drop a rhino turd on this thread.

Are still you ignoring me, Paul?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

That's not really Belichick's style, though, and he doesn't give much of a fuck about what anybody else thinks. He plays to win every week. If you want to rest your starters, blow out the opposition or be on the receiving end of one.

Actually, I am fairly certain he tanked it the last week of the 2005-06 season... setting up a favorable match-up against the Faguars in the 1st Rd of the playoffs.

Brady sat most of the game while Cassel played. Flutie dropped kicked a PAT... the 1st such feat in the NFL since the 1940s. NE lost 28-26. It was a joke of a game.

Anyways. NE trounced the Jags 28-3 the following week.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Fuck the Colts. Hello? You play. To win. The game.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The Jets may be the beneficiary of another gift if New England beats Houston in the early game, thus giving Cinci nothing to play for against New Jersey on Sunday night.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Eh, maybe. It's arguable. I think he might have underestimated the Bills there. Flutie was a dangerous player to have running around with nothing to lose.

Flutie was on NE and the game was against Miami. Belichick sent Flutie out there to drop-kick a PAT through the uprights instead of having Vinatieri do it the normal way... with a holder and shit. Believe me, New England was categorically not trying their hardest to win the game.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Polian douses himself in gasoline and lets fans blowtorch his nuts:

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2009/12/28/ ... t-by-colts

More on this idiot here:

I thought we had made it very plain that 16-0 was not a goal for us," Polian said. "What we’ve said, it seems, repeatedly, since Halloween almost, was that 16-0, we did not feel was a historic achievement. What was important to us, and what we tried very hard to do, coming off a short week against Jacksonville, after we had wrapped up the home-field advantage, was to set two records. One was for the most consecutive regular-season games won.

"We were tied with New England for that, and now we have it for ourselves, and secondly, for the most games won this decade, and I don’t believe anyone can catch us now no matter what happens this week. We felt those were both extremely historical milestones that were worth going out there and risking everything for."

And if Polian didn't side-swipe the Patriots enough there, there was this: "New England did not win the Super Bowl, and they are not considered an undefeated team, and so it would not have been complete had we not gone all the way. And to us, since it had been done before (by the 1972 Dolphins), it was not as historic a milestone," as the aforementioned ones.

Ouch!!!! I can see where some of you may want to stop reading here. Feel free to follow the jump for more of Polian's reasoning, and just who made the decision on Sunday.


"We went over it during the week with Mr. (Jim) Irsay, among many other people," Polian explained. "And we were quite public about it, as well. Both coach (Jim Caldwell) and I were asked about it quite frequently, and we responded that this was our plan. The timing was entirely up to coach, it was his decision to make as to when we took the players out.

"And by the way, it was Peyton (Manning), Reggie Wayne, who was battling a sore toe and sore groin, Dallas Clark, who had a thigh contusion, and I think that was. Joseph Addai went out earlier in the game with an injury."

Polian explained that he's proud that those players are upset about losing the game. But he said that there was evidence for his decision's validity that came up almost immediately after Manning and Co. were yanked.

"When Jim Sorgi had to be placed on injured reserve with shoulder problems, it was evident to coach and myself that we had to be very careful with Peyton, because there’s no one out there we could bring in that could handle the load of being the backup quarterback," Polian said. "Curtis Painter is a rookie and we’re in a situation where we had to be very careful with him.

"As a matter of fact, Gijon Robinson, our starting tight end, went out with a knee injury which will keep him out a couple of weeks at the same time those fellas came out of the game. On the very next series, I believe, the Jets blitzed as they do frequently, and Gijon’s substitute missed the blitz pickup and the quarterback got hit and fumbled and resulted in a touchdown. And while we wish no ill to Curtis, had that been Peyton, I and many, many others would’ve felt a heck of a lot worse."

Couple of things here. No one talks about the consecutive regular fucking season games record... everyone talks about the 72 Dolphins. No one cares about games won in a decade either. When defining the best team of the decade, the starting point is titles. Furthermore, yeah, I think it's all about titles. If the Colts shit their pants as per usual with a 1st Rd bye (didn't they start 13-0 when they got fucked by the Steelers a few years ago?), no one will call them the team of the decade. If that's what they're really going for. Again, who really gives a fuck though. It's all about titles, is it not?

Furthermore, you fucking douche... 19-0 has NEVER been done before. Ever.

[Diogenes]

Nobody from that candyassed division is getting a WC slot. And whoever wins it will be bounced in the first round.

Same old Dolts. :twisted: