Andrew Luck

[hoorta]

6 hours ago, The Gipper said:

You are not getting it, at all apparently.  We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)

And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6.  Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs.  Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.

I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB.  We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.

That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority. Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have. 

BTW, the Browns tanking for draft picks sure helped the W-L record of the teams they were up against- like the Steelers and every other team in the AFC North. So it most certainly did affect who got in the playoffs- or not. 

[medicineman]

Not to go off topic so to speak but yeas most teams that go 10-6 do make playoffs, Had the Pats not gone 16-0 we may have stood a chance. If you recall in 1985 we went 8-8 and made playoffs only to fall to the Phins in the wildcard round in a "fixed" game if you ask Chip. or should I say Medicine man 

[Dste Ace]

14 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

No, I agree---fuck the Colts (Irsay).

As for the rest of it---sorry, the Browns have no one to blame but themselves. If you're counting on another team to win in order for you to make the playoffs, you probably don't belong in the playoffs. In 2011, the Red Sox entered the final game of the season needing the Yankees to beat Baltimore so that Boston could get the wild card. The Yankees had clinched the division the week before. The Yankees led and then Joe Girardi pulled the starters in the 6th inning. Baltimore came back and won and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation because the Yankees "tanked so we wouldn't make the playoffs". Barry Larkin said on Baseball Tonight, "the Yankees took care of their business. It is not their responsibility to help you make the playoffs." 3 or 4 years ago we had the same shit with the Steelers. After another 0-3/2-4 start, they rallied late in the season and in the final week needed another AFC team that had already clinched a playoff berth to win. That team rested it's starters and Steeler Nation and the Steeler players themselves bitched and moaned that other teams tanked because they were afraid of the Steelers in the playoffs. Fuck'em. Win your games and forge your own destiny.

In '07, with 2 games left the Browns controlled their own destiny. Beat the 5-9 Bengals and the 49ers and we were in. Instead, we laid an egg against Cinci. Not an iota of the requisite effort and intensity. So we went into the final game needing the Colts to win. The Colts sat their starters. Tough shit for us. Win your fucking games.

[The Gipper]

7 hours ago, hoorta said:

That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority.

Fucking Bullshit. Integrity is in the heart and in the mind.  Yes, I realize that with Trump World that Integrity is a devalued commodity.  But really...does everything have to be based on dishonesty and greed?

Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have. 

So what if they lost to the  Bengals the week before. It was still a playoff race. So, you are saying that I should just give up and accept that a lack of integrity and honesty are just now the norm in American culture.  

 

 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Dste Ace said:

No, I agree---fuck the Colts (Irsay).

As for the rest of it---sorry, the Browns have no one to blame but themselves. If you're counting on another team to win in order for you to make the playoffs, you probably don't belong in the playoffs. In 2011, the Red Sox entered the final game of the season needing the Yankees to beat Baltimore so that Boston could get the wild card. The Yankees had clinched the division the week before. The Yankees led and then Joe Girardi pulled the starters in the 6th inning. Baltimore came back and won and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation because the Yankees "tanked so we wouldn't make the playoffs". Barry Larkin said on Baseball Tonight, "the Yankees took care of their business. It is not their responsibility to help you make the playoffs." 3 or 4 years ago we had the same shit with the Steelers. After another 0-3/2-4 start, they rallied late in the season and in the final week needed another AFC team that had already clinched a playoff berth to win. That team rested it's starters and Steeler Nation and the Steeler players themselves bitched and moaned that other teams tanked because they were afraid of the Steelers in the playoffs. Fuck'em. Win your games and forge your own destiny.

In '07, with 2 games left the Browns controlled their own destiny. Beat the 5-9 Bengals and the 49ers and we were in. Instead, we laid an egg against Cinci. Not an iota of the requisite effort and intensity. So we went into the final game needing the Colts to win. The Colts sat their starters. Tough shit for us. Win your fucking games.

OK....I get it.  Let's not value integrity. 

I will take that as a cue to hereafter lie, cheat, steal...and that no one will think the worst of me for it. 

Thank you for freeing me from morality.

Now, let's ask this:  What can the Browns now do to cheat their way into the playoffs this year?   Go the Steeler route and pass out the HGH injection needles?  Videotape the other teams practices?  Deflate the balls? Go for the opposing QBs knees? At worst that would be 15 yards....worth it to knock out BR/Jackson etc. Tap the other teams communications with the field?

Everything is on the table, apparently.

[Gunz41]

34 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

 

I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.

But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?

Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?

Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.

I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel

[The Gipper]

23 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.

But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?

Yea, that is different.  In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.

Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?

Uhmm that is different.  I have no problem with a team being cautious about an injured player.  Just because he is cleared may not mean he is ready.

Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.

I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel. 

Wait and see is a full accepted legal construct.  Just ask Professor Sonnenfield.

 

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Yea, that is different.  In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.

Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually".  The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts. The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters. 

And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical. 

And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already. 

[The Gipper]

24 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually".  The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts.

It is not disingenuous...because it is designed to get BETTER players.  You always expect to get better with any trades.

The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters. 

And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical. 

And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already. 

Give me the list of all those teams that have rested their players....when the results of their game would affect someone else's potential playoff potential...and I will rag on them. I remember the one time it affected the Browns....but I don't know every instance...because I am a Browns fan.  I would say that they are pretty rare.

 

[hoorta]

5 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Give me the list of all those teams that have rested their players....when the results of their game would affect someone else's potential playoff potential...and I will rag on them. I remember the one time it affected the Browns....but I don't know every instance...because I am a Browns fan.  I would say that they are pretty rare.

The instances of teams resting their players happens almost every year. And like your wimpy "I haven't seen the tape" on the roughing the passer- just because you didn't see it, or haven't kept track of it- doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

My assertion is just as valid as yours. You think I'm wrong? Do some work and prove it.   

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

The instances of teams resting their players happens almost every year. And like your wimpy "I haven't seen the tape" on the roughing the passer- just because you didn't see it, or haven't kept track of it- doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

My assertion is just as valid as yours. You think I'm wrong? Do some work and prove it.   

I didn't say you were wrong.  I said I am not aware of other instances because I am a Browns fan and haven't followed what happens to other teams closely.  Plus....I don't want to "rag on" these other teams unjustifiably if it has not happened. 

So. OK, without naming them specifically.....just considered them having been "ragged on".

[Tour2ma]

On 8/26/2019 at 1:34 PM, medicineman said:

I don't understand why wait til the season is about to start? Why not say something before the draft? Even at tne 1st preseason game? Why wait til after the most important preseason game then say "I am done"? IMO it is a pure bitch move. He could of said something a long time ago. 

1. You don't know what he said or did not say to Irsay & Coin 2019 .
2. He wasn't going to play in PreS 4 or Week 1 the way his rehab was progressing.
3. Even had he said something pre-draft were the Colts in any position to go after a QB of consequence? Especially since they like Brissett... plus they have (and apparently like) Chad Kelly... a Tour darkhorse.

Wouldn't shock me if they stand pat for 2019 and mini-tanked (an approach they pioneered) for a 2020 prospect.

[Gunz41]

8 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

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.

[The Gipper]

3 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

You are obviously missing said point.

I am not missing the point.....Its just that you are now beating it to death and it has become boring to bother to even read your continuing saga on this.

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.

Nobody cares?  Except that legal constructs rule things...so you better start caring.

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.

I would, but, again...you are boring the life out of me with this....so I won't bother.

Besides, Hoorta told me to get over it.  So I have.....maybe he can address you about that as well.

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.

 

 

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

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.  

[flyingfooldoug]

20 hours ago, The Gipper said:

OK....I get it.  Let's not value integrity. 

I will take that as a cue to hereafter lie, cheat, steal...and that no one will think the worst of me for it. 

Thank you for freeing me from morality.

Now, let's ask this:  What can the Browns now do to cheat their way into the playoffs this year?   Go the Steeler route and pass out the HGH injection needles?  Videotape the other teams practices?  Deflate the balls? Go for the opposing QBs knees? At worst that would be 15 yards....worth it to knock out BR/Jackson etc. Tap the other teams communications with the field?

Everything is on the table, apparently.

Send Tanya to take out BRs knees?

[The Gipper]

9 hours ago, hoorta said:

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.  

I thought you told me to move on. Practice what you preach. In the thread was still about Andrew Luck and the Colts. that is my primary thing being the  Colts can suck forever. 

[bjh2130]

9 hours ago, hoorta said:

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. 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, bjh2130 said:

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. 

Not in the game we’re Talking about

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, bjh2130 said:

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.  

 

[TexasAg1969]

16 minutes ago, hoorta said:

The Hoorta has a vineyard to harvest today, so I'm done arguing. 

What you growing in it? You make wine with it?

[bjh2130]

53 minutes ago, hoorta said:

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. 

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

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

[Gunz41]

49 minutes ago, bjh2130 said:

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. 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, hoorta said:

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. 

[bjh2130]

47 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

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. 

Actually from what I can tell ther tits outscored the colts starters 7-3 while the colts backups only got outscored by 2 (9-7 tits)

[The Gipper]

58 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

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? 

[Gunz41]

58 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

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

[The Gipper]

46 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

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.

[Gunz41]

40 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

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.