The Goat Pen

Hard to believe the colts are keeping him on the active roster if they have a sense that he is done for good. What would be the point?

There's very little info about his injury, really, so it's all speculation. I'll be happy if he suits up next July, rarin' to go.

I would imagine that spending time with the wife and kids and being able to stand and walk without pain would be important to him. He has all the money he'll ever need.

All the money he, his kids, their kids, their kids kids, their kids kids kids...

All this over a cracked egg?

c'mon Rat, ValNation's entire self-esteem is wrapped up in whether Purrty plays again!

I'm sorry that Peyton is injured and can't play, but I haven't thought much about it. He's already cemented his legacy, IMO. One of the greatest QBs in the history of the game. First ballot HOF'er, for sure. College and pro HOF. Years from now, people will probably look back and say that he was one of those unique players who actually changed how his position was played. Hell, this whole injury thing will probably enhance his reputation, if anything. Seeing what the Colts are like without him is about as compelling a statement as you can make about how great he is.

Truthfully, if you had told me at the end of his college career that he would have gone on to become what he has become, I wouldn't have believed it. I thought he would have a decent NFL career, but nothing like this.

dave_rickart wrote:c'mon Rat, ValNation's entire self-esteem is wrapped up in whether Purrty plays again!

Grown man spends all this time posting pics and thinking up cutesy digs just so he can hate on some ballplayer he has no apparent connection to...say what about self-esteem?

Hacksaw wrote:It bears repeating: Brady goes out and the Pats carry on almost as if nothing changed. Peyton goes out and the Colts fall apart.

Throw in the statistical advantage that Peyton has and there's no real debate -- Peyton > Brady.

Well, we'll see. Patriots were 16-0 in 2007 the year before Brady got hurt and were 11-5 without him in 2008, which statistically they had the easiest schedule in the league, but still didn't make the playoffs. But, for sake of argument, let's say losing Brady cost the Patriots 5 games. Colts with Manning were 10-6 in 2010. If Colts win 5 or more games in 2011 your argument is not valid. If they lose less than 5 games than you have a point.

sardis wrote:

Hacksaw wrote:It bears repeating: Brady goes out and the Pats carry on almost as if nothing changed. Peyton goes out and the Colts fall apart.

Throw in the statistical advantage that Peyton has and there's no real debate -- Peyton > Brady.

Well, we'll see. Patriots were 16-0 in 2007 the year before Brady got hurt and were 11-5 without him in 2008, which statistically they had the easiest schedule in the league, but still didn't make the playoffs. But, for sake of argument, let's say losing Brady cost the Patriots 5 games. Colts with Manning were 10-6 in 2010. If Colts win 5 or more games in 2011 your argument is not valid. If they lose less than 5 games than you have a point.

Wrong. Statistically, the loss of Brady cost the Patriots 1 game -- not 5. The Patriots have averaged 12 wins a season with Brady as their starter. In the one season he missed, they won 11 games. And that one season without Brady was better or equal to the result of 3 other seasons that were played with Brady as the starter. That's why I say that the Pats didn't appear to lose much when they lost Brady. They had a playoff-caliber year with the backup QB in there, which suggests that they were a pretty good team no matter who was taking the snaps.

The Colts have also averaged 12 wins a season over the course of Peyton's career (and that includes his rookie year, when they won only 3 games). So if the Colts win 11 games (or more), then I will be forced to agree that they are pretty good without him. We'll see.

Citing the 16-0 season as representative of how much better the Pats were with Brady is exactly the sort of dishonest statisitcal evidence that people use all of the time to artificially boost Brady in comparisons to Manning.

I could just as easily point out that the Pats, with Cassell at QB, won 11 games the year Brady sat out. If Brady is so great, then why did they have FEWER WINS the next season, with Brady back as the starter?

Truthfully, using the averages over their careers isn't scientific, either, because the overall makeup of the teams changes from year-to-year. But it's a lot more honest than picking out one good year -- or one bad year, for that matter (which you might notice I haven't felt the need to do...before now).

I will say this about Brady, though...he is off to an unbelievable start this season. He definitely seems to be getting better as his career goes on. He may even finally be getting good enough to merit some of the high praise he's been getting all of these years.

You're treading water

Burn this fucking thread.

"I'm sorry that Peyton is injured and can't play, but I haven't thought much about it."

funny, bc you have definitely typed a ton of posts about it....

When I log onto this site and I see discussion about it, I respond. Other than that, I don't give it much thought at all. Whatever limited interest I have on the subject is based solely on the fact that I'm a Tennessee fan and I take a passing interest in former Tennessee players and how they're doing in the NFL.

What's your motivation?

So you deny the Peyton poster above your bed?

Is it too much to ask that we keep the homosexual stuff on the Bama thread where it belongs?

Since when does having a poster above your bed scream homosexuality? Was that a slip?

Dear Mr Hacksaw:


I did not bring homosexual jokes or innuendo to this thread. That, sir, was a Nole. When the Nole in question did so, you posted a comment that said "rimshot" (?). I merely questioned the meaning of the line.

So, in essence, revise and resubmit.

Regards,
AA

I'm not here to judge, dude.