I like the Colts to beat the Broncos

[Yubaking]

So, basically Indy cannot "prove" they are good on the field, as each of their victories says more about their opponents than themselves, but their losses are in them. At least you admit when you're wrong, which is, obviously, never.

Are you going to make shit up to "prove" the colts aren't good like the entire stone cold thing?

I never made up anything. You just didn't read what I wrote correctly and drew erroneous conclusions because you were predisposed to do so.

I hardly know what else I can say in this thread. The Colts aren't that good. They play in a weak division. I expect them to win their division by default and go one and done again just like they did last year. I said we were better last year than they were and would have beaten them. They got more talented, we got less talented and I still thought we would beat them and we did as I expected.

The Colts have not done anything so I have nothing to prove. Talk to me the year they win a playoff game. It will be 2015 at the earliest. If we get in at #6 and they are at #3, we will beat them--again.

[blahblahblah]

Have at you!

[Yubaking]

Blasphemy. That only works for the teams Yuba agrees are good. Hell, winning a Super Bowl doesn't prove shit, the ravens were considered just ok.

I definitely do not believe that the best team always wins the Super Bowl. In fact, in the last decade or so, it has been fairly uncommon.

If you think that the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Patriots, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

[Yubaking]

If they make the playoffs by definition they are good.

No, last year's Colts were not good. Negative 30 PF-PA teams are not good ever. Period.

[sandiego17]

I never made up anything. You just didn't read what I wrote correctly and drew erroneous conclusions because you were predisposed to do so.

I hardly know what else I can say in this thread. The Colts aren't that good. They play in a weak division. I expect them to win their division by default and go one and done again just like they did last year. I said we were better last year than they were and would have beaten them. They got more talented, we got less talented and I still thought we would beat them and we did as I expected.

The Colts have not done anything so I have nothing to prove. Talk to me the year they win a playoff game. It will be 2015 at the earliest. If we get in at #6 and they are at #3, we will beat them--again.

You did make shit up, claiming Martin lost out to a guy who wasn't on the roster and called that guy the dolphins Reyes, nowhere near the truth. He was a street free agent bust that they picked up after bailing on Martin. Nothing was misread, the tap dancing and denial is expected. Easier just to not make shit up though.

The colts beat three teams most consider pretty damn good. That has nothing to do with the division they play in, does it? What did the 2006 chat prefers do? You considered them good, right? So it's regular season for the team you consider good, and superb owl or bust for the one you consider not that good. Consistency.

[Yubaking]

I'll call them the best team of the decade, maybe ever. Only rivaled by playoff sensation 2006 bolts.

Name the teams in the decade that you think were better. I understand that this is an opinion piece, but for all of your squawking and that of other posters when I had the audacity to claim that the 2006 Chargers were arguably the best team of the decade, nobody has come forward and nominated any other team for that title. So give me your top 5 of the 2000s. Really, I would like to know.

[sandiego17]

I definitely do not believe that the best team always wins the Super Bowl. In fact, in the last decade or so, it has been fairly uncommon.

If you think that the 2007 Giants were better than the 2007 Patriots, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

No one said best, but definitely good. If you're selling a bridge should I assume its a sink hole.

[blahblahblah]

*whoosh*

[sandiego17]

Name the teams in the decade that you think were better. I understand that this is an opinion piece, but for all of your squawking and that of other posters when I had the audacity to claim that the 2006 Chargers were arguably the best team of the decade, nobody has come forward and nominated any other team for that title. So give me your top 5 of the 2000s. Really, I would like to know.

You mean besides the 2012 Colts, 2013 colts and that 7-9 Seahawks team that won a playoff game?

[Beerman]

Name the teams in the decade that you think were better. I understand that this is an opinion piece, but for all of your squawking and that of other posters when I had the audacity to claim that the 2006 Chargers were arguably the best team of the decade, nobody has come forward and nominated any other team for that title. So give me your top 5 of the 2000s. Really, I would like to know.

Off the top of my head the ten Super Bowl winners in the decade.

[Yubaking]

You did make shit up, claiming Martin lost out to a guy who wasn't on the roster and called that guy the dolphins Reyes, nowhere near the truth. He was a street free agent bust that they picked up after bailing on Martin. Nothing was misread, the tap dancing and denial is expected. Easier just to not make shit up though.

The colts beat three teams most consider pretty damn good. That has nothing to do with the division they play in, does it? What did the 2006 chat prefers do? You considered them good, right? So it's regular season for the team you consider good, and superb owl or bust for the one you consider not that good. Consistency.

Nope, you are wrong. I claimed that Martin, to the extent he was going to be waived, couldn't beat out the other players they kept, which included Austin at that time I made my comment. My statement was entirely accurate in that respect.

But you are right in that Austin is nowhere near Reyes. I was wrong when I said that and acknowledged to SFW when he raised the issue in that thread while Austin was still on MIA's roster. At that time, though, I thought Austin had potential given his age and that he had been injured, but was healthy now, but MIA didn't agree so he did turn out to be a street free agent bust.

I don't rate teams based upon records, but rather based upon statistical analysis and which team I would favor on a neutral field (which often is closely related to the statistical analysis). Anyone could see that last year's Colts were an anomaly and not good despite their 11-5 record. The -30 PF-PA among other defects was a dead giveaway.

The 2006 Chargers were a much, much better team. They had the best PF-PA, the league's highest scoring offense and were #1 in sacks. Just a night an day difference that I would think wouldn't actually require much in the way of explanation. Further, the team was very close to being undefeated for the whole season.

[Yubaking]

Off the top of my head the ten Super Bowl winners in the decade.

The 2007 Giants, really? One game on a neutral field against our 2006 team. G-Men would have been double digit underdogs.