LOL @ Colts

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you or did you not come here and say two things yesterday BEFORE your game vs SD, Mr. Cocky?

    1. "Colts D have allowed fewer points than NE."

    2. "Your WRs have a lot of drops."

    Did you not say those two things in the same day? Reggie Wayne had an easy drop and your team had a bunch all game. Oh, the irony.

    You also said "Colts allowed less points" before your Week 6 game, Me. Sneaky. The Colts have allowed 1 more point than our superior D, which makes it even more comical.

    Could it be that the combo of me calling the Pats gameplan to the T and seeing how they can beat a team like NOs, even without Gronk, with you coming here and volunteering info that backfired hilariously so, has got you in this little tizzy of yours?

    Could  it be that?

    lol

     

    [/QUOTE]
    I said both things and both things were true.  What does this have to do with you saying but then walking away from you indy tanked comment?  what does this have to do with you not explaining how the colts have a winning record beating two SB contenders without the pagano effect?  what does this have to do with you not knowing Indy's offensive approach this year or if Toler is any good?  or not knowing that the colts only were in the red zone once last night? 

    russ, quit jumping around like you have ADHD.  I know you are being owned post by post, but lets stay on task.  And in response to your post.  Again, both things were true.  And having a one point points allowed differential over 6 games does not make the pats d better especially when its been proven that the colts have faced better offenses than the pats.  

    Looking forward to your next topic - because I know you won't stay on these.  I'll give you this, though; its better to walk away from lost arguments than to keep arguing them.  good for you russ.  Fresca?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    Queenie is making a complete fool of himself on this thread bwahaha. Would be shocked if he wasn't drinking already.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigsmellybear. Show bigsmellybear's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually think the Colts have a ton of upside. Choosing Luck over Manning was the right move. This team will be a contender for years to come. The Pats had an ugly road loss last week against an inferior team so it's not like the Pats fan base has much reason to brag. The Pats and Colts both beat an undefeated NFC super bowl contender this year so both teams are legit in my book.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 - but I'll give the pats this.  They are much better on the offensive line.  In general, their defensive unit is better, too, I think - although I have been impressed with the colts and I was impressed with the way they managed to keep SD out of the end zone 3 times in the red zone.  That said, they've got to do better than just keep a team out of the end zone.  SD dominated the TOP by almost 2:1.  Some of that is on the offense definitely.  Colts could have used Austin Collie last night.  Everyone dropped passes.  Awful.

    [/QUOTE]


    You engage in the most obvious revisionist history when it suits you, like today after your boys were whipsawed at home...that had to hurt dude...admit it...your boys just aren't that good, and I mean it, where you easily write it yet don't mean it...Luck is a great young QB, I gladly acknowledge that, but c'mon man, you DID strut about the team and have to eat big azzed crow now...open wide...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Queenie is making a complete fool of himself on this thread bwahaha. Would be shocked if he wasn't drinking already.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh Bungy Bustchise you!

    I exposed the bejesus out of Underpants by calling out two incorrect statements from him and somehow I am making a fool of myself.

    [/QUOTE]

    Explain how they were incorrect Russell.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And, what's your point?  Their roster turnover from older, aging players in the last 2 years, means they didn't tank the 2011 season for Luck as they walked from Gomer?

    The premise is, your 2011 Colts team really wasn't a 2-14 kind of team. They wanted to make sure they got the #1 pick.

    FACT

     

    [/QUOTE]

    how'd they intentionally tank the season russ?

    [/QUOTE]

    By losing winnable games, moron.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Examples please.  And please cite specific instances where they intentionally chose to tank within these alleged games.  And when you cite those instances please provide proof that you have knowledge from the team that their intent in those instances was to tank. 

    Looking forward to your report. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you or did you not come here and say two things yesterday BEFORE your game vs SD, Mr. Cocky?

    1. "Colts D have allowed fewer points than NE."

    2. "Your WRs have a lot of drops."

    Did you not say those two things in the same day? Reggie Wayne had an easy drop and your team had a bunch all game. Oh, the irony.

    You also said "Colts allowed less points" before your Week 6 game, Me. Sneaky. The Colts have allowed 1 more point than our superior D, which makes it even more comical.

    Could it be that the combo of me calling the Pats gameplan to the T and seeing how they can beat a team like NOs, even without Gronk, with you coming here and volunteering info that backfired hilariously so, has got you in this little tizzy of yours?

    Could  it be that?

    lol

     

    [/QUOTE]
    I said both things and both things were true.  What does this have to do with you saying but then walking away from you indy tanked comment?  what does this have to do with you not explaining how the colts have a winning record beating two SB contenders without the pagano effect?  what does this have to do with you not knowing Indy's offensive approach this year or if Toler is any good?  or not knowing that the colts only were in the red zone once last night? 

    russ, quit jumping around like you have ADHD.  I know you are being owned post by post, but lets stay on task.  And in response to your post.  Again, both things were true.  And having a one point points allowed differential over 6 games does not make the pats d better especially when its been proven that the colts have faced better offenses than the pats.  

    Looking forward to your next topic - because I know you won't stay on these.  I'll give you this, though; its better to walk away from lost arguments than to keep arguing them.  good for you russ.  Fresca?

    [/QUOTE]

    I am being "owned' post by post because your team lost, tanked for Luck and just yesterday said or WRs have a lot of drops with your team having more in your game AND Indy's D has allowed more points than our D?

    LOL!

    I forgot what it's like watching you squirm, so desperate to deflect as I bludgeon you.

    Even our little Jets troll Bustchise is trying to support you in here. You two are cute together.

    bawhaha

    [/QUOTE]

    post by post.  I provide evidence and you just keep on with your childish "I can't hear you nonsense."

    Admittedly, you are like a child without his pacifier droning on and on hoping to get it back but lacking the intellect due to an undeveloped brain to actually provide reason for wanting it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to bigsmellybear's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually think the Colts have a ton of upside. Choosing Luck over Manning was the right move. This team will be a contender for years to come. The Pats had an ugly road loss last week against an inferior team so it's not like the Pats fan base has much reason to brag. The Pats and Colts both beat an undefeated NFC super bowl contender this year so both teams are legit in my book.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 - but I'll give the pats this.  They are much better on the offensive line.  In general, their defensive unit is better, too, I think - although I have been impressed with the colts and I was impressed with the way they managed to keep SD out of the end zone 3 times in the red zone.  That said, they've got to do better than just keep a team out of the end zone.  SD dominated the TOP by almost 2:1.  Some of that is on the offense definitely.  Colts could have used Austin Collie last night.  Everyone dropped passes.  Awful.

    [/QUOTE]


    You engage in the most obvious revisionist history when it suits you, like today after your boys were whipsawed at home...that had to hurt dude...admit it...your boys just aren't that good, and I mean it, where you easily write it yet don't mean it...Luck is a great young QB, I gladly acknowledge that, but c'mon man, you DID strut about the team and have to eat big azzed crow now...open wide...

    [/QUOTE]

    revisionist history?  Do you even know what that means?  You act as if you know me but don't know that I've already said that I don't know if the colts are that good?  Go back and reread.  I think maybe you hoping to jab me a little here, but have failed because you are only reiterating what I've already said. 

    As for being excited about the team - you bet.  When you've experienced a 2-14 team and have followed that up with a playoff berth and a current winning record while knowing your team is incomplete, there's alot to be excited about. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigsmellybear. Show bigsmellybear's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bigsmellybear's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually think the Colts have a ton of upside. Choosing Luck over Manning was the right move. This team will be a contender for years to come. The Pats had an ugly road loss last week against an inferior team so it's not like the Pats fan base has much reason to brag. The Pats and Colts both beat an undefeated NFC super bowl contender this year so both teams are legit in my book.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 - but I'll give the pats this.  They are much better on the offensive line.  In general, their defensive unit is better, too, I think - although I have been impressed with the colts and I was impressed with the way they managed to keep SD out of the end zone 3 times in the red zone.  That said, they've got to do better than just keep a team out of the end zone.  SD dominated the TOP by almost 2:1.  Some of that is on the offense definitely.  Colts could have used Austin Collie last night.  Everyone dropped passes.  Awful.

    [/QUOTE]


    You engage in the most obvious revisionist history when it suits you, like today after your boys were whipsawed at home...that had to hurt dude...admit it...your boys just aren't that good, and I mean it, where you easily write it yet don't mean it...Luck is a great young QB, I gladly acknowledge that, but c'mon man, you DID strut about the team and have to eat big azzed crow now...open wide...

    [/QUOTE]

    revisionist history?  Do you even know what that means?  You act as if you know me but don't know that I've already said that I don't know if the colts are that good?  Go back and reread.  I think maybe you hoping to jab me a little here, but have failed because you are only reiterating what I've already said. 

    As for being excited about the team - you bet.  When you've experienced a 2-14 team and have followed that up with a playoff berth and a current winning record while knowing your team is incomplete, there's alot to be excited about. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I've been here for years and know you Colt Troll...very well indeed...and you engage in revisionist history when it suits you...you do it all the time in fact...lol...face the facts...your Colt team goes nowhere this season....Horseface will probably lose twice to KC and probably to NE...your nose is permanently attached to Gomer's bungalo hole....so keep sniffing and be like "Kobe" to the Pat's "Shaq"...that's what you're best at...heck, even that drunken owner of the Colt's said he moved on from Horseface because he was driven, not by SB's but personal stats and accomplishments.....I never thought I'd say this, but I think Irsay is right...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And, what's your point?  Their roster turnover from older, aging players in the last 2 years, means they didn't tank the 2011 season for Luck as they walked from Gomer?

    The premise is, your 2011 Colts team really wasn't a 2-14 kind of team. They wanted to make sure they got the #1 pick.

    FACT

     

    [/QUOTE]

    how'd they intentionally tank the season russ?

    [/QUOTE]


    They tanked last year-be objective dude-really?  On another note I was impressed with the Colts D last night -very fast! And Luck will be good and get better for years to come-so the Colts look good offensively for years--Colts fans got Lucky to get Luck after Manning- the neck injury was a blessing to the org.  I try to be as objective as I can being a Pats fan--Now you be objective also and stop lying to yourself by saying the Colts didn't TANK last year--It was obvious Dude!!!

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    typical.  lots of bluster.  no facts.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bigsmellybear's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bigsmellybear's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually think the Colts have a ton of upside. Choosing Luck over Manning was the right move. This team will be a contender for years to come. The Pats had an ugly road loss last week against an inferior team so it's not like the Pats fan base has much reason to brag. The Pats and Colts both beat an undefeated NFC super bowl contender this year so both teams are legit in my book.

    [/QUOTE]

    +1 - but I'll give the pats this.  They are much better on the offensive line.  In general, their defensive unit is better, too, I think - although I have been impressed with the colts and I was impressed with the way they managed to keep SD out of the end zone 3 times in the red zone.  That said, they've got to do better than just keep a team out of the end zone.  SD dominated the TOP by almost 2:1.  Some of that is on the offense definitely.  Colts could have used Austin Collie last night.  Everyone dropped passes.  Awful.

    [/QUOTE]


    You engage in the most obvious revisionist history when it suits you, like today after your boys were whipsawed at home...that had to hurt dude...admit it...your boys just aren't that good, and I mean it, where you easily write it yet don't mean it...Luck is a great young QB, I gladly acknowledge that, but c'mon man, you DID strut about the team and have to eat big azzed crow now...open wide...

    [/QUOTE]

    revisionist history?  Do you even know what that means?  You act as if you know me but don't know that I've already said that I don't know if the colts are that good?  Go back and reread.  I think maybe you hoping to jab me a little here, but have failed because you are only reiterating what I've already said. 

    As for being excited about the team - you bet.  When you've experienced a 2-14 team and have followed that up with a playoff berth and a current winning record while knowing your team is incomplete, there's alot to be excited about. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I've been here for years and know you Colt Troll...very well indeed...and you engage in revisionist history when it suits you...you do it all the time in fact...lol...face the facts...your Colt team goes nowhere this season....Horseface will probably lose twice to KC and probably to NE...your nose is permanently attached to Gomer's bungalo hole....so keep sniffing and be like "Kobe" to the Pat's "Shaq"...that's what you're best at...heck, even that drunken owner of the Colt's said he moved on from Horseface because he was driven, not by SB's but personal stats and accomplishments.....I never thought I'd say this, but I think Irsay is right...

    [/QUOTE]

    The best is when he kees posting after being embarrassed. THats' when you know you have him dead to rights. It's been a while since I've had to bludgeon him, but the irony of him coming on here with his two statements, was just impossible to ignore.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Coming at me with your paper tiger stuff again, eh Russell?  I am waiting for you to once support your bluster with substance. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigsmellybear. Show bigsmellybear's posts

    Re: LOL @ Colts

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did or did you not on Monday afternoon say two things:

    1. Your team has a lot of drops.

    2. The Colts D has allowed fewer points than the Pats.

    Did you, or did you not make those statments?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    When you get troll boys mlike Uddie and Bustchise dead to rights they come back with the rediculous "prove it" declamation....I mean, prove WHAT? That you are caught in your own lies? Already done by the act of confrontation ...can't cure stupid...truer words never uttered

     

Share