Super Bowl Predictions

[7orelevn]

I think it will be a very good superbowl. Colts will win....

 

[38special]

I called a Colts/Saints SB early in the regular season.

Ultimately I'd like to see the Colts win, and they probably will, but a Saints win won't bother me either.

As long as the freakin Pats are out, I'm game

 

[slow1911s]

Not if NO's defense can get to Manning like they beat up Favre tonight. We all know that Peyton usually folds like a cheap tent after he takes a couple good hits.

Really? He was sacked twice in the first series (or the 1st and 2nd, I can't remember) last night, then went on to hand 24 unanswered points on the Jets.

Fold? Really?

 

[hornadylnl]

Really? He was sacked twice in the first series (or the 1st and 2nd, I can't remember) last night, then went on to hand 24 unanswered points on the Jets.

Fold? Really?

I guess you forget all of Peyton's past post season games. You know he doesn't exactly have a stellar post season career don't you? How do you think San Diego has beat them in the past? They get inside Manning's head and we get to see that famous head down, pout face. It usually makes the front page of the Indy Star every year when they lose in the playoffs.

 

[public servant]

They get inside Manning's head and we get to see that famous head down, pout face. It usually makes the front page of the Indy Star every year when they lose in the playoffs.

I bet we know someone else who has that exact same face when they win.

 

[hornadylnl]

I bet we know someone else who has that exact same face when they win.

I'd rather have the pout face when I win than to have my "2 year old didn't get the toy he wanted" picture plastered all over the sports world loss.

Peyton seems to have toughened up mentally and doesn't get as visibly shaken when things aren't going his way. If you look at all of the Colts post season losses, a large majority of them, Peyton was beaten mentally. You could see it in his actions on the field and on the sidelines. The teams that beat him put him on his back.

 

[slow1911s]

I guess you forget all of Peyton's past post season games. You know he doesn't exactly have a stellar post season career don't you? How do you think San Diego has beat them in the past? They get inside Manning's head and we get to see that famous head down, pout face. It usually makes the front page of the Indy Star every year when they lose in the playoffs.

You are aware they won last night, right? San Diego lost last week (just bringing you up to speed).

The playoffs are over and no one got in his head (not even close - against the #1 and #3 defenses in the league). No one did it during the regular season, either.

 

[public servant]

You are aware they won last night, right? San Diego lost last week (just bringing you up to speed).

He's in denial.

 

[JetGirl]

SB final score prediction.
Colts/Saints = 35-31

 

[hornadylnl]

You are aware they won last night, right? San Diego lost last week (just bringing you up to speed).

The playoffs are over and no one got in his head (not even close - against the #1 and #3 defenses in the league). No one did it during the regular season, either.

Wow, how silly of me to look at Peyton's entire post season career to gauge his chances this year.
Manning's legacy on the line in postseason | The News-Sentinel - Fort Wayne IN

I think Manning's post season record has improved to 9-8 since this article as it was written on the 16th. Brady's post season record was 14-4 in the article.

So I guess looking at Peyton's past is a baseless argument.

 

[public servant]

I think Manning's post season record has improved to 9-8 since this article as it was written on the 16th. Brady's post season record was 14-4 in the article.

No matter how badly you want it...Brady is sitting at home.

 

[hornadylnl]

No matter how badly you want it...Brady is sitting at home.

Believe it or not, I used to be a fan of the Colts years ago. I ceased being a fan before the new stadium deal. The colts have been underachievers for many years and there is only so much mediocrity I can take. I'd have more pride in an 0-16 team that slugs it out every game an eeks out a win or two than a 16-0 team that quits and only does enough to get by. Doing just enough to get by has backfired on the Colts for many years now.

If it settles your dander any, I think the Colts will beat NO. It just depends on who the NFL wants to win. The Colts have been their darlings for the last several years. Is NO the new NFL darlings?

 

[tom]

with the colts defense i think they have a great chance at winning to me its what has kept them from winning in the past.

 

[JetGirl]

I think the Colts will beat NO. It just depends on who the NFL wants to win. The Colts have been their darlings for the last several years.

You have a point.

Is NO the new NFL darlings?

I hope not. I don't know how much more "WHO DAT!??" I can take...

 

[hornadylnl]

You have a point.


I hope not. I don't know how much more "WHO DAT!??" I can take...

If anyone takes an objective look at the officiating in the playoffs, you can easily tell there are certain teams that the NFL is rooting for. For years, we heard Colts fans complain about bad calls when they played the Pats in the playoffs. I didn't either watch those games or remember so I won't say the bad calls did or didn't happen. It's likely they did.

But the biggest game that sticks out in my mind is the Colts game against the Steelers in the 2005 season. The Steelers mopped the field with the Colts the entire game but the refs kept the Colts in it. So much so that the Colts fans laid the loss on Vanderjact when they shouldn't have been within 10-15 points of the Steelers if it weren't for the terrible calls. It was clear there was an agenda there. The sports community were begging for Manning to have a ring.

I can enjoy watching any good football game but I want them called fairly regardless of who I'm rooting for. I'm not a "fan" of any team I guess. I think the only team piece of clothing that I've had in the last 20 years is a Patriots hat. The only reason that I have it is because I got an NFL Shop gift card when I bought a tv 4 years ago. While I enjoy watching it, I don't obsess over it. There are much more important things in life to me than making threats at Indy bar owners who happen to be Ravens fans.

 

[public servant]

Believe it or not, I used to be a fan of the Colts years ago. I ceased being a fan before the new stadium deal. The colts have been underachievers for many years and there is only so much mediocrity I can take. I'd have more pride in an 0-16 team that slugs it out every game an eeks out a win or two than a 16-0 team that quits and only does enough to get by. Doing just enough to get by has backfired on the Colts for many years now.

If it settles your dander any, I think the Colts will beat NO. It just depends on who the NFL wants to win. The Colts have been their darlings for the last several years. Is NO the new NFL darlings?

I'm not a fan of the stadium deal either. But I blame that on Irsay and Bart Peterson. Manning, Saturday, Sanders and Wayne had nothing to do with it. I think the blame should be placed where it is deserved rather than misdirected.

And even with that said...as much as I dislike Irsay...I can't fault a business man for seeking the best deal he could get. The majority of the blame should be shouldered by local politicians. When the new stadium deal was finally hammered out amid rightful grumblings by the general public an editorial was published by the Indy Star...in that editorial the Colts organization refuted rumors that they threatened to move the team if they were not given a new stadium. In short the Colt brass said the offer was made to them. Peterson never denied those claims by the Colts organization. True or not? Who knows...

I think the Colts' performance the past few years has been far from mediocre (unless you're just looking at the playoff picture)...although admittedly not as high as many had hoped.

In reality...I have nothing to do with the success of the Colts and they have nothing to do with my success of lack thereof. It's merely a game...and on any given Sunday... I've been to one Colts game. The first year they came to Indy. Versus the Jets oddly enough...and they got beat like a red-headed step child. Yeah...Gastineau was in his prime steroid playing days.

And for the record....my dander isn't up. Can you say the same?

While I enjoy watching it, I don't obsess over it.

If it weren't for Colts bashing your post count would be 3. J/K

 

[Indy317]

I'm not a fan of the stadium deal either. But I blame that on Irsay and Bart Peterson. Manning, Saturday, Sanders and Wayne had nothing to do with it. I think the blame should be placed where it is deserved rather than misdirected.

The players are just as guilty. Pro-sports players and team owners are the biggest receivers of welfare in this nation. I have no problem with players making tens of millions a year. I do have a problem when the NFL, team owners, and players go out of their way to take tax income in order to allow wages to stay in the stratosphere. It happens in the NFL to the tune of tens of millions, on a smaller scale, it reaches six-figure levels (United Way, Indianapolis Downtown Inc., CIB, etc.). If Manning, Saturday, Sanders, and Wayne only made half of their income, and the league minimum was $100K/year instead of $250K/year, team owners would have more money to build their palaces, which help build the sport. Instead of the fair way of doing things, all the above conspire to keep their wages sky high and let the taxpayers build their workplaces for them.

And even with that said...as much as I dislike Irsay...I can't fault a business man for seeking the best deal he could get. The majority of the blame should be shouldered by local politicians. When the new stadium deal was finally hammered out amid rightful grumblings by the general public an editorial was published by the Indy Star...in that editorial the Colts organization refuted rumors that they threatened to move the team if they were not given a new stadium. In short the Colt brass said the offer was made to them. Peterson never denied those claims by the Colts organization. True or not? Who knows...

So the ends justify the means with regards to Ir$ay? Just because his theft of taxpayer money is legal, we shouldn't criticize him? Is there no more moral compass in this country, of what is right and what is wrong, so long as it is legal, it is fair, equitable, and not able to be criticized? Yes, the politicians are the people with the most blame, but those who receive welfare are just as much to blame. Should be never blame inner city teens who constantly get pregnant and add to the welfare rolls? Are they just maximizing their income by continuing to have kid after kid, and therefore shouldn't be faulted?

 

[public servant]

The players are just as guilty. Pro-sports players and team owners are the biggest receivers of welfare in this nation. I have no problem with players making tens of millions a year. I do have a problem when the NFL, team owners, and players go out of their way to take tax income in order to allow wages to stay in the stratosphere. It happens in the NFL to the tune of tens of millions, on a smaller scale, it reaches six-figure levels (United Way, Indianapolis Downtown Inc., CIB, etc.). If Manning, Saturday, Sanders, and Wayne only made half of their income, and the league minimum was $100K/year instead of $250K/year, team owners would have more money to build their palaces, which help build the sport. Instead of the fair way of doing things, all the above conspire to keep their wages sky high and let the taxpayers build their workplaces for them.



So the ends justify the means with regards to Ir? Just because his theft of taxpayer money is legal, we shouldn't criticize him? Is there no more moral compass in this country, of what is right and what is wrong, so long as it is legal, it is fair, equitable, and not able to be criticized? Yes, the politicians are the people with the most blame, but those who receive welfare are just as much to blame. Should be never blame inner city teens who constantly get pregnant and add to the welfare rolls? Are they just maximizing their income by continuing to have kid after kid, and therefore shouldn't be faulted?

Oh no...I have no problem criticizing Irsay. I think the guy is a snake. I'll even leave his drug habit out of it. But honestly....can you name a business man in Indy that wouldn't have jumped on the deal he was offered? Does it make it right? Absolutely not. I was not in any way meaning Irsay is blameless. But I do think politicians should shoulder most of the blame for offering the deal in the first place. Personally...I'd have called Mayflower for them. They could have gotten a repeat customer discount.

Colts players? I dunno...they hammer out a contract that sets their salary. Can I fault them for taking all the money they can get? I personally can't. They only make what someone is willing to pay.

My salary comes from taxpayers (keep in mind I also pay the same taxes). Would I turn down a raise because of it? Not likely. Bob Smith works at Wal-Mart. Should he turn down a raise because it will mean the cost of Wal-Mart milk will go up 2 cents a gallon? Sam Jones works for Speedway Gas Co. Should he turn down a raise because the cost of fuel may go up a penny a gallon?

Are you willing to take a pay cut to lower taxes or to lower the costs of consumer products?

 

[hornadylnl]

The players are just as guilty. Pro-sports players and team owners are the biggest receivers of welfare in this nation. I have no problem with players making tens of millions a year. I do have a problem when the NFL, team owners, and players go out of their way to take tax income in order to allow wages to stay in the stratosphere. It happens in the NFL to the tune of tens of millions, on a smaller scale, it reaches six-figure levels (United Way, Indianapolis Downtown Inc., CIB, etc.). If Manning, Saturday, Sanders, and Wayne only made half of their income, and the league minimum was $100K/year instead of $250K/year, team owners would have more money to build their palaces, which help build the sport. Instead of the fair way of doing things, all the above conspire to keep their wages sky high and let the taxpayers build their workplaces for them.



So the ends justify the means with regards to Ir? Just because his theft of taxpayer money is legal, we shouldn't criticize him? Is there no more moral compass in this country, of what is right and what is wrong, so long as it is legal, it is fair, equitable, and not able to be criticized? Yes, the politicians are the people with the most blame, but those who receive welfare are just as much to blame. Should be never blame inner city teens who constantly get pregnant and add to the welfare rolls? Are they just maximizing their income by continuing to have kid after kid, and therefore shouldn't be faulted?

What you will find out here that arguing for freedom is considered more juvenile than arguing for mature things like how much better Manning is than Brady.

Yes, I do believe Manning, Saturday, and the other players have some responsibility for this new stadium. They demand their salaries. Colts income must equal more than outgoing expenses. If Irsay were forced to build his own stadium and make his own mortgage payments instead of the taxpayers, his income would not be greater than the rest of his expenses. If we forced the burden of cost back on to Irsay, that would necessarily force Irsay to reduce cost or raise his ticket prices astronomically. If he can't sell the tickets at a price to cover expenses, then he must reduce those expenses. The cost of brick and mortar for the stadium is a pretty fixed cost. Salaries aren't.

My dander isn't up. The people that argue for the loss of freedom and subsidizing professional sports are another reason why I don't give a flying F about this country any more. If I did, I'd have an coronary. These types of people are the ones driving our country into a third world cesspool and they don't care as long as they get to root on their Colts every Sunday.

Who is John Galt.

 

[public servant]

What you will find out here that arguing for freedom is considered more juvenile than arguing for mature things like how much better Manning is than Brady.

Yes, I do believe Manning, Saturday, and the other players have some responsibility for this new stadium. They demand their salaries. Colts income must equal more than outgoing expenses. If Irsay were forced to build his own stadium and make his own mortgage payments instead of the taxpayers, his income would not be greater than the rest of his expenses. If we forced the burden of cost back on to Irsay, that would necessarily force Irsay to reduce cost or raise his ticket prices astronomically. If he can't sell the tickets at a price to cover expenses, then he must reduce those expenses. The cost of brick and mortar for the stadium is a pretty fixed cost. Salaries aren't.

My dander isn't up. The people that argue for the loss of freedom and subsidizing professional sports are another reason why I don't give a flying F about this country any more. If I did, I'd have an coronary. These types of people are the ones driving our country into a third world cesspool and they don't care as long as they get to root on their Colts every Sunday.

Who is John Galt.

Let me ask you. Because I believe you work in the private sector. Your boss comes in tomorrow and tells you he's going to double your salary by raising the cost of either the product or service your company provides. You know this cost will just be absorbed by and passed on by other companies to their customers. Would you turn down the raise?