16-0

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:58 pm

New Orleans 10-0
Indianapolis 10-0

Saints remaining schedule
New England
@ Washington
@ Atlanta
Dallas
Tampa Bay
@ Carolina

Colts remaining schedule
@ Houston
Tennessee
Denver
@ Jacksonville
NY Jets
@ Buffalo

What do you think, will either team run that table and end up 16-0?

Better yet, will either team go 19-0?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:51 pm

If the Saints can get by New England, they have a good shot at making 16-0.

Colts have no one left on their schedule that I think can beat them. Sure, any given Sunday... The only caveat is that the Colts are not like the Pats. 16-0 doesn't mean much to them. Super Bowl and staying healthy means the most. I can see the Colts wrapping up home field through the playoffs by week 14 and then resting the starters in the 4th quarter of the remaining games. Peyton may play 1 quarter in week 17.

As for 19-0, once again, I'd say the Saints have the better shot at 19-0 if they get by NE simply because the NFC road in the playoffs is nowhere near as tough as the AFC road will be. Indy, San Diego, NE and Pittsburgh are all 4 tough playoff teams.

Regardless, it's looking to be a great playoff season yet again in the league. I honestly hope the Titans win out and make the playoffs. Not very likely. If the Colts or Titans make the Super Bowl, I will be in Miami for it no doubt.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:01 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:The only caveat is that the Colts are not like the Pats. 16-0 doesn't mean much to them.

What does this mean? Seriously. What in the fuck does this idiot statement mean? I'm expecting links and direct quotes from players and coaches. Not your half-assed interpretation which I guarantee you is fucked.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:10 pm

You need only look at week 17 a couple years ago in the Pats/Giants game. NE was going for 16-0. It's all that mattered to them. I don't need a quote from Belicheat or Brady to make my point. Look how they played that meaningless game down to the wire.

The Colts have a long history of benching their starters early late in the season when their playoff picture is set and can't be changed. Now, that was under Dungy, but Caldwell was the Asst. HC as well. I imagine he'll continue the tradition of preserving the health of his starters as opposed to letting his ego get in the way of the end goal which is to win a SB. If the Colts are 15-0 and Peyton plays more than 1 half in the final game of the season, I'll eat crow and say 16-0 was more important to the Colts than keeping the team healthy.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:43 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:What does this mean? Seriously. What in the fuck does this idiot statement mean? I'm expecting links and direct quotes from players and coaches. Not your half-assed interpretation which I guarantee you is fucked.

EASY, Thunder....you act like he just called your mother a whore.

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:07 pm

As a life long Saints fan, I can honestly say that 16-0 wouldn't mean anything special to me. I would much rather a Super Bowl win if it meant regular season losses. But to answer your question, tart, the Saints two biggest games (Pats & Cowboys) are both at home and at night Huge advantage for the Saints, so it is possible.. I wouldn't be surprised if they win those two and lose in Atlanta. We'll see.

A undefeated Saints v. an undefeated Colts matchup in the big game would be ideal. :)

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:12 pm

TenTallBen wrote:A undefeated Saints v. an undefeated Colts matchup in the big game would be ideal. :)

I'd take that.

I could just see all the old '72 Dolphin players rooting for a tie.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:22 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:You need only look at week 17 a couple years ago in the Pats/Giants game. NE was going for 16-0. It's all that mattered to them. I don't need a quote from Belicheat or Brady to make my point. Look how they played that meaningless game down to the wire.

How did their... "effort"

in that game differ from any other week 17 game where a bye week was guaranteed in the Belichick era? Furthermore, they had a pretty comfortable lead and the Giants scored a last second meaningless TD to make it "only" a 3 pt win. Keep talking out of your ass.

Furthermore, if that's "all that mattered to them", then how did they advance to the Super Bowl where they ended up one ridiculously amazing play from winning a title?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:32 pm

They were losing the game until 5 minutes or so into the 4th qtr. They were still in all out pass attack with the starting unit until the game ended.

Like I said, lotta "ifs" gotta go down, but if the Colts are 15-0 and game 16 @ Buffalo is even remotely a close game and Peyton sees 1 snap of the second half, I'll be the first to say the Colts care more about 16-0 than they do the health of their team. You're the homer here, not I. Yeah, we have season tix because I enjoy going to see NFL football, but I'm just calling a spade a spade. Whether I get your blessing of my opinion of the Pats or not I could care less. You can say my head is up my ass all you want, but I don't see how you can tell with yours buried deep in the sand.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:15 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:They were losing the game until 5 minutes or so into the 4th qtr.

Love your revisionist history bullshit. Sadly for you, Algore invented the interweebs. See. Instead of talking out of your ass, perhaps you should consult the fucking box score. In there, you will see that NE regained the lead with over 11 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Furthermore, you sniveling little cunt, NE got the ball right back after intercepting Manning and then methodically drove 52 yards in 9 plays without the clock stopping once. That put the Giants down 10 with about 4.5 minutes left.

Lastly, you offered up no evidence that their "effort" was NOT SOP for a week 17 game with a bye week sewn up. Did you?

See. Not all teams believe in tanking it. Coughlin had the 6th seed sewn up regardless of the outcome of that game and he still "tried hard" to win. As a matter of fact... it could be argued that the effort put forth in that game gave his team the momentum necessary for a title run. And they had a road playoff game the very next week.

Fuck you, your shitty theories, and whatever team you're rooting for this week. Cunt.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:22 pm

Holy shit. Revisionist history? I recalled based on memory and I was a fucking minute off on what I said. So they regained the lead with about 10 minutes to go instead of 11. RELEASE THE HOUNDS YOU NITPICKING GUNT!

How come is it anytime someone stops short of swallowing a load from Brady or Belicheat when speaking of the Pats you melt?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:35 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:How come is it anytime someone stops short of swallowing a load from Brady or Belicheat when speaking of the Pats you melt?

That's funny. I question Belichick all of the time. He's got many faults... including numerous shitty signings at LB and RB, questionable calls on 4th down, and his inability to adjust to other team's 2nd half adjustments (see all 3 losses this year where they led at the half.)

Just don't tell me that they were doing something "different" in that game or that they were "airing it out" when they actually attempted 26 rushes. Of course, the paltry 42 yards they netted on those carries forced them to throw, a lot, you're way off base with your "air show" take.

You're a typical Colts (or is it Texans) sniveling little cunt with faggoty theories and awful takes. If me systematically abusing your shit posts on a point by point basis is called... "melting", then ya... you "got me."

LASTLY....

Feel free to respond this portion... especially in light of Manning's sub .500 playoff record and the Colt's shitty practices on post-season preparation:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:See. Not all teams believe in tanking it. Coughlin had the 6th seed sewn up regardless of the outcome of that game and he still "tried hard" to win. As a matter of fact... it could be argued that the effort put forth in that game gave his team the momentum necessary for a title run. And they had a road playoff game the very next week.

I noticed you glossed right over it. Comments?

trev · Post by **trev** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:59 pm

Saints have the tougher schedule but I think neither will go 16-0. I think they will both lose at least 1. Saints/Chargers in the big show. :)

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:36 pm

trev wrote:Saints/Chargers in the big show. :)

I laughed. Bwa!

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:39 pm

Actually, I'm a Titans fan. I live near Indy. My entire set of in-laws are Indy fans. We have a total of 20 season tix to the Colts we all pitch in for and I go to the games. So, I HOPE Indy doesn't get to that 15-0 mark because it would mean they beat the Titans next week pretty much ending any hopes of them making the playoffs. Yeah, they're 4-6 now, but they won 10 straight last year. I'm hoping they do it again this year.

That being said, if Indy DOES go to the Super Bowl, no less than 25 or so of my family will make the trek to Miami for the Super Bowl. For me, although my team wouldn't be in it, it would still be a blast. So yeah, if the Titans can't make it, for my own selfish reasons of wanting to go to the Super Bowl, it's not out of bounds to hope the Colts make it since my wife and her entire family are Colts fans.

As for the Coughlin comment, I would say the same thing to him as I said about Belicheat. He was more interested in playing "spoiler" to 16-0 than preserving the health of his team. In fact, I believe they lost their starting center to a knee injury for the playoffs. They ultimately won the SB, but losing the center isn't like losing an OLB or a DB. This is a guy who handles the ball every offensive play. That could have been VERY costly for them. Had they lost Manning, Plaxico, or Jacobs, they most likely would not have made that run. No matter, I pointed at the Pats 16-0 as an example and not the Giants because we are discussing 16-0 in this threa. Topic title up top should have told you.

I don't think a team needs to lay down and give up, but you denying the "air show" took place is ludicrous. In the 4th qtr alone they passed 12 times and rushed 4 while, most of the quarter, as you have admitted, they were winning in a mean nothing game. And I don't mean to come off as acting surprised by the fact as well. Hell, all season long the Pats performed the air show. I don't think I've ever seen so many 3 yard or less passing TDs in a season.

Oh, and I never said you haven't been critical of the Pats. I've seen all your posts about "Morony." You just act like the black dude who can drop the N-bomb at will because "he's black." Same as if anyone ISN'T a fan of the Pats, they can't have an opinion on them if it is a negative one.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:11 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, and I never said you haven't been critical of the Pats. I've seen all your posts about "Morony." You just act like the black dude who can drop the N-bomb at will because "he's black." Same as if anyone ISN'T a fan of the Pats, they can't have an opinion on them if it is a negative one.

You're entitled to your opinion... however, just like everyone (including Neely and Th) else here... it will suck ass because it's not mine. That's just how I roll. No offense.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:35 pm

Jsc810 wrote:This Saints fan is only looking to MNF.

The only way NE wins that one is if they put up 40+ pts... getting back a few key players this week will help. I am sure NE will make it interesting, but they haven't won a true road game all year (Tampa in London was deemed a "roadie" by the schedulemakers.)

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:26 am

Yeah, mv, with the Dolts' stellar record against the AFC's elite, I can see that...

in a BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! sort of way.

WHAAAA!!!!! They danced on our logo WHAAAAA!!!!!!!

Sorry, when your "leadership" consists of a guy who's more famous for his whiney meltdowns than the gaudy number of tuddies he's scored, and your other leaders are more famous for their childish dance moves than their sack total, and your QB is more famous for shedding tears than his high QB rating...

You're fucked.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:56 am

poptart wrote:What do you think, will either team run that table and end up 16-0?

Better yet, will either team go 19-0?

Yes.

And No.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:53 am

The Chargers will be playoff fodder, imo.

They've got a good chance to get to 9-3, as their next two games are KC and @ Cleveland.
But then they face @ Cowboys, Bengals, @ Titans.

Look for a fade for SD during that stretch.

But since they've come on of late, they've got a good shot at winning the AFC West.
I think they're prolly looking at 11-5.

Poor running game and very mediocre defense doesn't often spell playoff success, though.
And until they shake the "lacking toughness" label that's rightfully be attached to them, I can't say I like SD's playoff chances very much.

And I'd like their chances even less if they go in as a wildcard, which is possible.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:07 pm

Nobody from that candyassed division is getting a WC slot. And whoever wins it will be bounced in the first round.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:23 pm

Last I checked the NFC West is just about as bad.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:43 pm

Dio -- Denver still has KC twice and Oak... all very winnable games. Not sure the last time you checked the AFC standings and remaining schedules for Pitt/Jack/Balt/Hou. Methinks 10-6 will net a WC this year.

Paul -- I am shocked you played the IKYBWAI card.

trev · Post by **trev** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:02 pm

I would like to keep the Chargers off the radar anyway. They do better this way.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:30 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Paul -- I am shocked you played the IKYBWAI card.

Even MORE shocking that you THINK that's what that was....Dio's team plays in the NFC West, which last time I checked is every bit as SHITTY as the AFC West. It's a fact. I pointed out said FACT. Dio played the proverbial "pot" calling the "kettle" black.

You may kindly dislodge yourself off my ankle now, Fido.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:45 pm

Paul wrote:Dio's team plays in the NFC West, which last time I checked is every bit as SHITTY as the AFC West. It's a fact.

Is this not the fucking epitome of "I know my division sucks but so does yours"?

Are you still dealing with a turkey induced coma? Wake the fuck up, idiot.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:24 pm

By what criteria? Let's see...

Currently, we have St Loser, you have the Chefs.

Push.

We have Frisco, you have Faders.

Advantage NFC.

We have an injury ridden Seattle, you have The Dolts and Mules.

Advantage NFC X2.

WE have The Mighty Cardinals. You have your head up your ass.

GFY.

BTW, over the last decade the AFC Worst has participated in exactly 4 Conference Championship games. Record: 1-3

NFC West: 4 NFC Championship games-4 Super Bowl appearances.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:50 am

The AFC West has two teams that are probably among the top 10 in the league - SD and Denver.
The NFC West has just one - Arizona.

KC and Seattle are about equal - both 3-7.

Both divisions have one truly awful team - Oakland and St. Louis.

Then you have SF, which is a middle-of-the-pack type of team.

The AFC West has a 20-22 record, overall.
The NFC West is 15-25 overall.

Looking at all of that, I'd say the AFC West is a slightly stronger division this year.

And ucant is right, the AFC West has a decent shot at sending a team in as a wildcard.

Yer a Fuckin Jerkoff · Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:59 am

mvscal wrote:
I don't think the Colts are "BWHAHAING" very much about the prospect of playing the Chargers in the playoffs.

Maybe not, but they will feel comfortable about it this year. The 8-8 Chargers got over last year by hosting that game since they won the shitty AFC West, but in the RCA Dome I think San Diego would be beaten easily.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:59 am

poptart wrote:The AFC West has two teams that are probably among the top 10 in the league - SD and Denver.

Not even close.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:16 pm

Only four teams have a better record than the Chargers and only eight teams have a better record than the Broncos.

SD is in the top 10 for sure, and if Denver isn't, they are right there.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:47 pm

mvscum wrote:...doesn't know jack shit about football or anything else for that matter.

Coming from an anti-American racist who can't handle basic math (and a Dolt fan to boot), that's high praise.

poptart wrote:Only four teams have a better record than the Chargers and only eight teams have a better record than the Broncos.

And how long ago was it that the Mules was supposed to be a top 5 team? Or that the Gnats were supposed to be the team to beat in the NFC?

The only scoreboard that matters record-wise will be the one at the end of week 17. And after the first round of the playoffs, the entire AFC Worst will be at home. But to go back to what I actually said...

Diogenes wrote:Nobody from that candyassed division is getting a WC slot. And whoever wins it will be bounced in the first round.

Ucant has a point. there are still a lot of cupcakes on the schedule for the bottom feeders and it's possible the first part of the statement will be false.
You can bank on part two though.

Diogenes wrote:By what criteria?

Well I guess if you're judging by mid-season W/L records, the AFC Worst rocks. I'll wait till the end of the season myself.

And over the past decade, they have been a steaming pile of WGARA.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:32 pm

mvscal wrote:(3-3)=(3-2)

STFU, moron.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:43 pm

R-Jack wrote:I love how Dio keeps harping on importance of things like...

...being able to do simple math?

STFU, moron.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:33 pm

Feel perfectly free to SUCK ON THIS, Diofaggot:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson wrote:The AFC West’s 21-win total heading into Week 13 is tied with the AFC East and the AFC North, two divisions expected to be much better overall than the AFC West. The NFC West has 17 wins, the worst in the NFL.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/ ... -is-better

:bode:

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:29 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Colts have no one left on their schedule that I think can beat them. Sure, any given Sunday... The only caveat is that the Colts are not like the Pats. 16-0 doesn't mean much to them. Super Bowl and staying healthy means the most. I can see the Colts wrapping up home field through the playoffs by week 14 and then resting the starters in the 4th quarter of the remaining games. Peyton may play 1 quarter in week 17.

IndyFrisco wrote:Like I said, lotta "ifs" gotta go down, but if the Colts are 15-0 and game 16 @ Buffalo is even remotely a close game and Peyton sees 1 snap of the second half, I'll be the first to say the Colts care more about 16-0 than they do the health of their team.

Looks like I was right. Colts laid down yesterday.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:56 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Looks like I was right. Colts laid down yesterday.

I don't think anyone was debating you on that point. It's SOP for this organization with a 1st Rd bye secured. As are early playoff exits.

The only thing worth debating is whether or their lax attitude down the stretch fosters their underwhelming post-season history this decade.

HHhhhhmmmmm...

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:26 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:The only thing worth debating is whether or their lax attitude down the stretch fosters their underwhelming post-season history this decade.

I wouldn't debate against that point of view.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:01 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
The only thing worth debating is whether or their lax attitude down the stretch fosters their underwhelming post-season history this decade.

HHhhhhmmmmm...

I don't think it fosters anything. In fact I'll call you out for using the word underwhelming. Winning 1 Super Bowl in a 10 year span is far from underwhelming. I'd take 1 Super Bowl victory for the Eagles over a 10 year span as opposed to their frequent post-season appearances with no hardware to show at the end of it.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:38 pm

jiminphilly wrote:I don't think it fosters anything. In fact I'll call you out for using the word underwhelming. Winning 1 Super Bowl in a 10 year span is far from underwhelming. I'd take 1 Super Bowl victory for the Eagles over a 10 year span as opposed to their frequent post-season appearances with no hardware to show at the end of it.

You're going to call me out on a word? Me? Do you plan on doing so using the word in its proper context or are we going to be subjected to your usual "McNabb sucks and Reid is a fat drunken slob"?

Stop your whining. When exactly were the Eagles the "odds on favorite" to win the Super Bowl heading into the post-season? When exactly did Phillie have a 1st Rd Bye and get fucked in the ass in their first playoff game? Has Phillie actually lost their 1st playoff game this decade or have they always moved on to the next round? Hmmmmm? Who has a better post season record this decade, Phillie or Indy?

Good bye, jim. Nice chat as per usualm.