Andrew Luck
-
You are obviously missing said point. No matter what the circumstance, by your standards not playing guys is showing no integrity. Instead of the recent injured guy "not being ready" how about the guys are getting MORE ready to achieve the actual goal, WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.
We get it, since it effected the Browns you are against it. And nobody cares what legal construct. You are saying it because you wouldn't feel the same if the Browns were on the other end. While you have that right, it is hypocritical.
Like Hoorta said, please feel free to explain how you don't have a groaning session when the Browns got rid of all those vets (which certainly could have cost the team a couple wins) and based on a couple of their losses helped a team squeak into the playoffs.
And please don't give me the "trading to get draft picks is trying to get better ultimately." Exactly what do you think getting the best QB is doing? Oh, but I forgot, it was a team other than the Browns doing it so it was wrong.
Everyone has seen you complain about a lot of things, so we are supposed to believe that if the Browns were playing in a game that would not improve their playoff position that you wouldn't be up in arms if they played the starters and an integral part of the team (Baker, OBJ, Myles, Ward) got hurt you wouldn't come on here and shout to the world how stupid it was to play them when the game didn't matter?
Why not just put your big boy pants on, and just admit that you have less issues with something the Browns do as compared to other teams with the same situation. Im guessing it wouldn't be hard to go back and see how you responded to some instances of DV, yet once the conversation turned to Hunt once he was a Brown you tried to give "excuses/explanations." It may be wrong, but it would get more respect.
You come off as the type that wants to make everyone think you are right about everything, and will argue and downright tell anyone with a differing opinion how wrong they are instead of letting them have their opinion (right or wrong). And when you are given facts about how you were wrong, instead of just saying "hey guys I got that wrong" you give reasons/excuses why you were wrong, or try to make it look like you were right and someone else just misinterpreted.
Well, I was out on the bike all day- and I had a serious notion to lock this thread before I left. One of the nice things about being a Mod is it gives you the power to get the last word in.
But just pedaling along for hours in beautiful weather gives you plenty of time to think.
I do try to be fair to opposing viewpoints. But I'll say this to Gipper.
1) Regarding a game that happened 12 years ago. So the Colts didn't play their starters. You can't tell me (and no one can) with 100% certainty that if the Colts HAD played their starters- they wouldn't have lost the game anyway. That pretty much makes all your bitching a moot point.
2) Must be getting senile Gip. It occurred to me to look it up- for kicks and giggles- in both 2016 AND 2017 the Browns finished the season playing the Steelers. Guess what. In both of those games the playoff bound Steelers sat Ben, AB, AND Bell. Hard to believe huh? I'll say it for the last time- teams sit players all the time when they're getting ready for the playoffs- and it isn't their responsibility to other teams whether they win or lose that game. They do whatever they feel is in their own best interest. I don't doubt if I wanted to bother to do some research- I could probably dig up at least a dozen or so instances of players getting sat just in the last 10 years. It's SOP, and it sure isn't unethical. You saying it is- is just a personal opinion. And we're NOT going to start a debate here about how one exactly defines unethical. Got it?
3) The thread title is regarding Andrew Luck- and it got derailed by YOU Gipper. So just stop your bitch fest and pity party about what happened to the Browns over a decade ago.
1) Regarding a game that happened 12 years ago. So the Colts didn't play their starters. You can't tell me (and no one can) with 100% certainty that if the Colts HAD played their starters- they wouldn't have lost the game anyway. That pretty much makes all your bitching a moot point.
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
-
1) Regarding a game that happened 12 years ago. So the Colts didn't play their starters. You can't tell me (and no one can) with 100% certainty that if the Colts HAD played their starters- they wouldn't have lost the game anyway. That pretty much makes all your bitching a moot point.
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
-
1) Regarding a game that happened 12 years ago. So the Colts didn't play their starters. You can't tell me (and no one can) with 100% certainty that if the Colts HAD played their starters- they wouldn't have lost the game anyway. That pretty much makes all your bitching a moot point.
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
-
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
What you growing in it? You make wine with it?
-
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
I'm talking about the colts vs the tits game in 2007. Peyton was 14/16 for 95 yards. Addai had a handful of carries. Wayne had some catches and a drive ending fumble inside the tits 20. Bob Sanders was second in the team on tackles. The colts played almost all their starters for the first half.
-
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
I've noticed the same thing Hoorta
-
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
I'm talking about the colts vs the tits game in 2007. Peyton was 14/16 for 95 yards. Addai had a handful of carries. Wayne had some catches and a drive ending fumble inside the tits 20. Bob Sanders was second in the team on tackles. The colts played almost all their starters for the first half.
I'm talking about the colts vs the tits game in 2007. Peyton was 14/16 for 95 yards. Addai had a handful of carries. Wayne had some catches and a drive ending fumble inside the tits 20. Bob Sanders was second in the team on tackles. The colts played almost all their starters for the first half.
You mean to tell me that Gipper with all his whining and finding a way to tell everyone they are wrong was the one who was wrong? I'm shocked.
-
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
That is ridiculous. Ghoolie tendencies my eye. Just because we disagree on a football etiquette? I believe that teams should play out the string for the benefit of the league as a whole. If you don't. Fine. But don't get crazy with your assessments.
-
I'm talking about the colts vs the tits game in 2007. Peyton was 14/16 for 95 yards. Addai had a handful of carries. Wayne had some catches and a drive ending fumble inside the tits 20. Bob Sanders was second in the team on tackles. The colts played almost all their starters for the first half.
You mean to tell me that Gipper with all his whining and finding a way to tell everyone they are wrong was the one who was wrong? I'm shocked.
-
I'm talking about the colts vs the tits game in 2007. Peyton was 14/16 for 95 yards. Addai had a handful of carries. Wayne had some catches and a drive ending fumble inside the tits 20. Bob Sanders was second in the team on tackles. The colts played almost all their starters for the first half.
You mean to tell me that Gipper with all his whining and finding a way to tell everyone they are wrong was the one who was wrong? I'm shocked.
You mean to tell me that Gipper with all his whining and finding a way to tell everyone they are wrong was the one who was wrong? I'm shocked.
No....What I am shocked by..shocked, shocked!!.. is your lack of interest in maintaining the games integrity. And I am not wrong...I simply have a difference of opinion, as I said, on what should be football etiquette.
And you all seem to have missed the point of my whole thing here:
It is that I have NO sympathy toward the Indiana Colts, as an organization, over the loss of Andrew Luck. And I have explained my reason therefore.
Is there a reason you cannot accept my reasoning on that? Even if you think it illogical. I mean, I hate (in the sports sense) the Steelers and Ravens too, for my own esoteric reasons (which most of us here share). Should I be chastised for maintaining my own personal feelings about them as well?
-
You mean to tell me that Gipper with all his whining and finding a way to tell everyone they are wrong was the one who was wrong? I'm shocked.
No....What I am shocked by..shocked, shocked!!.. is your lack of interest in maintaining the games integrity. And I am not wrong...I simply have a difference of opinion, as I said, on what should be football etiquette.
And you all seem to have missed the point of my whole thing here:
It is that I have NO sympathy toward the Indiana Colts, as an organization, over the loss of Andrew Luck. And I have explained my reason therefore.
Is there a reason you cannot accept my reasoning on that? Even if you think it illogical. I mean, I hate (in the sports sense) the Steelers and Ravens too, for my own esoteric reasons (which most of us here share). Should I be chastised for maintaining my own personal feelings about them as well?
No....What I am shocked by..shocked, shocked!!.. is your lack of interest in maintaining the games integrity. And I am not wrong...I simply have a difference of opinion, as I said, on what should be football etiquette.
And you all seem to have missed the point of my whole thing here:
It is that I have NO sympathy toward the Indiana Colts, as an organization, over the loss of Andrew Luck. And I have explained my reason therefore.
Is there a reason you cannot accept my reasoning on that? Even if you think it illogical. I mean, I hate (in the sports sense) the Steelers and Ravens too, for my own esoteric reasons (which most of us here share). Should I be chastised for maintaining my own personal feelings about them as well?
Haha, I have said multiple times on this topic how you can have your opinion, what you obviously are wrong about is your moaning and groaning about the Colts in that game. A quick look up shows the starters DID PLAY. So your reasoning for hating them and saying they have no integrity has NO merit.
But we can take it further (even though it was pointed out when Colts starters were taken out they were losing). But I think you would have to agree (unless you are just unwilling to waver on your stance) that had the Browns not gotten rid of some of their better players the 0-16 season that they wouldn't have been 0-16. So let's just take the 5 closest games for the purpose of the exercise. Titans and Packers OT loses, and Colts, Jets, and Steelers. Steelers were 13-3, Colts 4-12, Jets 5-11, Titans 9-7 (MADE THE PLAYOFFS), and Packers 7-9. So by YOUR logic, since they got rid of those players and it helped Titans get into the playoffs isnt that against the integrity?
You see, as for me, I have been VERY clear. You can certainly have your opinion (whether I agree with it or not), I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of giving the Browns the benefit but not someone else.
And in the more general terms, I have an issue with how you want to say you are entitled to your opinion, yet when someone has a different opinion than you you make sure to tell them how wrong they are, and have even called them names because of their differing opinion. So why should you be given any more concessions than them? A lot of your actions on here like that come off as hypocritical.
As for earlier, the comment of nobody cares about legal construct was you just spinning something. The point was that in a discussion on a sports forum nobody cares what is legally acceptable. Whether it was your intention or not, your wait and see if the situation comes up for the Browns looks like a deflection to not answer as for other issues on here for you something is more acceptable if it's your team/player that the situation involves.
You don't have to justify your disdain for any team. But when you do justify it for a specific reason, when faced with something similar for your team and view it differently your view seems disingenuous and hypocritical. When all you had to respond to me (maybe not others) was you only care about the Browns and it may be irrational but you don't care. But instead you doubled down.
Just own your irrationality when it comes to your teams, that is what most fans are like anyway
-
No....What I am shocked by..shocked, shocked!!.. is your lack of interest in maintaining the games integrity. And I am not wrong...I simply have a difference of opinion, as I said, on what should be football etiquette.
And you all seem to have missed the point of my whole thing here:
It is that I have NO sympathy toward the Indiana Colts, as an organization, over the loss of Andrew Luck. And I have explained my reason therefore.
Is there a reason you cannot accept my reasoning on that? Even if you think it illogical. I mean, I hate (in the sports sense) the Steelers and Ravens too, for my own esoteric reasons (which most of us here share). Should I be chastised for maintaining my own personal feelings about them as well?
Haha, I have said multiple times on this topic how you can have your opinion, what you obviously are wrong about is your moaning and groaning about the Colts in that game. A quick look up shows the starters DID PLAY. So your reasoning for hating them and saying they have no integrity has NO merit.
But we can take it further (even though it was pointed out when Colts starters were taken out they were losing). But I think you would have to agree (unless you are just unwilling to waver on your stance) that had the Browns not gotten rid of some of their better players the 0-16 season that they wouldn't have been 0-16. So let's just take the 5 closest games for the purpose of the exercise. Titans and Packers OT loses, and Colts, Jets, and Steelers. Steelers were 13-3, Colts 4-12, Jets 5-11, Titans 9-7 (MADE THE PLAYOFFS), and Packers 7-9. So by YOUR logic, since they got rid of those players and it helped Titans get into the playoffs isnt that against the integrity?
You see, as for me, I have been VERY clear. You can certainly have your opinion (whether I agree with it or not), I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of giving the Browns the benefit but not someone else.
And in the more general terms, I have an issue with how you want to say you are entitled to your opinion, yet when someone has a different opinion than you you make sure to tell them how wrong they are, and have even called them names because of their differing opinion. So why should you be given any more concessions than them? A lot of your actions on here like that come off as hypocritical.
As for earlier, the comment of nobody cares about legal construct was you just spinning something. The point was that in a discussion on a sports forum nobody cares what is legally acceptable. Whether it was your intention or not, your wait and see if the situation comes up for the Browns looks like a deflection to not answer as for other issues on here for you something is more acceptable if it's your team/player that the situation involves.
You don't have to justify your disdain for any team. But when you do justify it for a specific reason, when faced with something similar for your team and view it differently your view seems disingenuous and hypocritical. When all you had to respond to me (maybe not others) was you only care about the Browns and it may be irrational but you don't care. But instead you doubled down.
Just own your irrationality when it comes to your teams, that is what most fans are like anyway
Haha, I have said multiple times on this topic how you can have your opinion, what you obviously are wrong about is your moaning and groaning about the Colts in that game. A quick look up shows the starters DID PLAY. So your reasoning for hating them and saying they have no integrity has NO merit.
Peyton Manning was pulled when the game was in doubt.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200712300clt.htm
But we can take it further (even though it was pointed out when Colts starters were taken out they were losing). But I think you would have to agree (unless you are just unwilling to waver on your stance) that had the Browns not gotten rid of some of their better players the 0-16 season that they wouldn't have been 0-16. So let's just take the 5 closest games for the purpose of the exercise. Titans and Packers OT loses, and Colts, Jets, and Steelers. Steelers were 13-3, Colts 4-12, Jets 5-11, Titans 9-7 (MADE THE PLAYOFFS), and Packers 7-9. So by YOUR logic, since they got rid of those players and it helped Titans get into the playoffs isnt that against the integrity?
You see, as for me, I have been VERY clear. You can certainly have your opinion (whether I agree with it or not), I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of giving the Browns the benefit but not someone else.
And in the more general terms, I have an issue with how you want to say you are entitled to your opinion, yet when someone has a different opinion than you you make sure to tell them how wrong they are, and have even called them names because of their differing opinion. So why should you be given any more concessions than them? A lot of your actions on here like that come off as hypocritical.
As for earlier, the comment of nobody cares about legal construct was you just spinning something. The point was that in a discussion on a sports forum nobody cares what is legally acceptable. Whether it was your intention or not, your wait and see if the situation comes up for the Browns looks like a deflection to not answer as for other issues on here for you something is more acceptable if it's your team/player that the situation involves.
You don't have to justify your disdain for any team. But when you do justify it for a specific reason, when faced with something similar for your team and view it differently your view seems disingenuous and hypocritical. When all you had to respond to me (maybe not others) was you only care about the Browns and it may be irrational but you don't care. But instead you doubled down.
Just own your irrationality when it comes to your teams, that is what most fans are like anyway
So...who is beating the fucking dead horse now.....maybe you are Ghoolie Jr. You are now just prattling on to hear yourself.
Read my lips: Fuck the Colts.
-
Haha, I have said multiple times on this topic how you can have your opinion, what you obviously are wrong about is your moaning and groaning about the Colts in that game. A quick look up shows the starters DID PLAY. So your reasoning for hating them and saying they have no integrity has NO merit.
Peyton Manning was pulled when the game was in doubt.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200712300clt.htm
But we can take it further (even though it was pointed out when Colts starters were taken out they were losing). But I think you would have to agree (unless you are just unwilling to waver on your stance) that had the Browns not gotten rid of some of their better players the 0-16 season that they wouldn't have been 0-16. So let's just take the 5 closest games for the purpose of the exercise. Titans and Packers OT loses, and Colts, Jets, and Steelers. Steelers were 13-3, Colts 4-12, Jets 5-11, Titans 9-7 (MADE THE PLAYOFFS), and Packers 7-9. So by YOUR logic, since they got rid of those players and it helped Titans get into the playoffs isnt that against the integrity?
You see, as for me, I have been VERY clear. You can certainly have your opinion (whether I agree with it or not), I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of giving the Browns the benefit but not someone else.
And in the more general terms, I have an issue with how you want to say you are entitled to your opinion, yet when someone has a different opinion than you you make sure to tell them how wrong they are, and have even called them names because of their differing opinion. So why should you be given any more concessions than them? A lot of your actions on here like that come off as hypocritical.
As for earlier, the comment of nobody cares about legal construct was you just spinning something. The point was that in a discussion on a sports forum nobody cares what is legally acceptable. Whether it was your intention or not, your wait and see if the situation comes up for the Browns looks like a deflection to not answer as for other issues on here for you something is more acceptable if it's your team/player that the situation involves.
You don't have to justify your disdain for any team. But when you do justify it for a specific reason, when faced with something similar for your team and view it differently your view seems disingenuous and hypocritical. When all you had to respond to me (maybe not others) was you only care about the Browns and it may be irrational but you don't care. But instead you doubled down.
Just own your irrationality when it comes to your teams, that is what most fans are like anyway
So...who is beating the fucking dead horse now.....maybe you are Ghoolie Jr. You are now just prattling on to hear yourself.
Read my lips: Fuck the Colts.
So...who is beating the fucking dead horse now.....maybe you are Ghoolie Jr. You are now just prattling on to hear yourself.
Read my lips: Fuck the Colts.
See, like I said DEFLECT and NEVER ADMIT you were WRONG!!!!!!!!!
You said they didn't play their starters. But I guess what can we expect from someone whose job it is to spin everything and even more a man who seems to think he is always right. But go ahead and keep on calling people out who don't believe what you believe but when you are on the other end "I'm entitled to my opinion."
Moral of the story, you are entitled to your opinion, but nobody is entitled to one that differs from you. That is about as egotistical as it gets.
-
So...who is beating the fucking dead horse now.....maybe you are Ghoolie Jr. You are now just prattling on to hear yourself.
Read my lips: Fuck the Colts.
See, like I said DEFLECT and NEVER ADMIT you were WRONG!!!!!!!!!
You said they didn't play their starters. But I guess what can we expect from someone whose job it is to spin everything and even more a man who seems to think he is always right. But go ahead and keep on calling people out who don't believe what you believe but when you are on the other end "I'm entitled to my opinion."
Moral of the story, you are entitled to your opinion, but nobody is entitled to one that differs from you. That is about as egotistical as it gets.
See, like I said DEFLECT and NEVER ADMIT you were WRONG!!!!!!!!!
You said they didn't play their starters. But I guess what can we expect from someone whose job it is to spin everything and even more a man who seems to think he is always right. But go ahead and keep on calling people out who don't believe what you believe but when you are on the other end "I'm entitled to my opinion."
Moral of the story, you are entitled to your opinion, but nobody is entitled to one that differs from you. That is about as egotistical as it gets.
Sounds like you are talking to, and about yourself.
-
Also they actually did start their starters and then sat the offensive guys at half time. The majority of the defensive players played pretty much the whole game.
Um check the stats for those games- Ben, Brown, and Bell are nowhere to be found.
And finally- I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread. The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing.
I'll let Gipper believe whatever he wants to. He's starting to show some dangerous Ghoolie tendencies, and not just in this thread.
Sadly there is some truth in this statement.
-
Feckless Bottom line is that the Colts can suck forever in my opinion. Y’all can disagree with that if you’d like. But I guess if I don’t change my mind that makes me ridiculous. Well then I guess I’m ridiculous.
-
Wiseacre Bottom line is nobody is telling you who to like/dislike. What people are telling you is that it's not the only time this happened, and in some form that the team you cheer for has done it. Instead of resting their starters for a half, the Browns traded them away. And I am sure you can find somewhere in history that the Browns rested their starters. That makes you a casuist if you don't have the same issue with them doing it.
But let's ask one simple question. Since you are assuming that Colts win that game, let's assume that Browns had won the OT game with Titans in 2017 after they had gotten rid of those players. Do you now feel bad for the Ravens and Chargers since that loss by the Browns cost 1 of them a playoff spot since they ended up with 9-7 record same as Titans? If not, you are a mounteback.
See I can use big, rarely used words too. But it does kind of make sense that you think that you are ridiculous JUST because you have a different opinion, which is the furthest from the truth in my case. I even said you can have your hypocritical opinions, as that is some times how fans feel. But don't tell others how wrong they are, and even call people dumb, idiotic, etc for a different viewpoint than yourself
-
Not even bothering to read your prattling on. Keep chasing yer tail. Larry asked that we move on and I have done so long ago but there you are doing your Travis Bickel imitation
-
Not even bothering to read your prattling on. Keep chasing yer tail. Larry asked that we move on and I have done so long ago but there you are doing your Travis Bickel imitation
Larry asked that we move on and I have done so long ago but there you are doing your Travis Bickel imitation
Hoorta asked YOU to move on, never mentioned Gunz.
He seems to think YOU are the problem here.
-
Larry asked that we move on and I have done so long ago but there you are doing your Travis Bickel imitation
Hoorta asked YOU to move on, never mentioned Gunz.
He seems to think YOU are the problem here.
Hoorta asked YOU to move on, never mentioned Gunz.
He seems to think YOU are the problem here.
Well now it seems that you are the problem because you’re sticking your nose in it like you are Gladys Kravitz
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login