Jump to content
Carolina Huddle

Iron Saint

HUDDLER
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iron Saint

  1. I know what you were referring to and I made a similar observation of you too refusing to let go of the past in another thread. And for good reason, the no-call impacted not only our team and the result of that game, but it affected the Super Bowl and subsequently all 32 franchises' bottom line in regards to the revenue generated from that Super Bowl. It was a massive flop because the League had to justify bringing two teams back to L.A. after the Raiders and Rams left the first time in 1995. Had that been any other team in our position, those fans would've reacted the same way. We "can't let it go" but I still see y'all complaining about the officiating from the 2013 Divisional playoff loss to the 49ers. Care to explain how that's different? Speaking of ***holes, "let he without sin cast the first stone"...
  2. Care to illustrate where did I say anything about the NFC Championship in this thread? You're the one that brought it up. Calling us whining babies yet you still haven't let go of "Bountygate" and that was over 7 years ago. LOOOOL, k.
  3. Here's my prediction of the Raiders' participation in Hard Knocks and also their subsequent season...
  4. Lean over a little more, my fries could use that saltiness from those tears.
  5. Yessir, I'll also leave this here... https://twitter.com/BravoVictor03/status/1115119568375156736
  6. Eh, y'all might once... in a token win as we rest our starters in Week 17 like we did in 2006, and 2009, and 2018. But twice? Nah.
  7. Unless y'all are planning on unveiling an entirely brand new, revolutionary defense that the League has never seen before, there's only so many places he fits in. Unless y'all going to try him at SAM or maybe FS, that'd certainly be new. Not sure about revolutionary, but new nonetheless. And "Creole Troll", that's not bad. Kinda funny, to be honest.
  8. You just eliminated nearly every pop radio song ever, hahah. But agreed entirely. Hah! I consider "good Metallica" as back when Lars could actually play double bass. Now it's just disappointing to see him butcher those classics like "Blackened" and "Battery" because his feet can't keep up anymore. I loved his Slayer bit (which I think was from this same special). Man, that Brian Johnson bit was spot on though! LOOOOOOOOL, that's phenomenal. Aye! That's what I'm here for. Man, if I made a Saints-Panthers game at BoA and y'all cranked out that gem, you'd see me dancing my black and gold *** off, spinning that shirt around like a helicopter.
  9. Mmmm yas, Taylor. I'm more than aware what that Buccaneers did with McCoy during his stint in Tampa Bay, especially in the 15 games he played against us. He didn't require absurd amounts of game planning for (such as someone like Aaron Donald would demand) then, and likely won't require additional now that he's in a new uniform and on the wrong side of 30. He's a good player and will likely be a solid piece of y'all defense, but you're just reaching. I'm sorry, and what have you contributed to this discussion thus far? At least trucpfan provided sustenance with his argument instead of replying with nothing of value and running.
  10. If there's a flag when Brees is hit running, it's because he was sliding or stepped out of bounds and the defender still hit him. Brees barely runs as it is, and on the rare instance he does, he won't try to run over defenders and take additional unnecessary damage and will slide 99 times out of 100 (not including QB sneaks or stretching the ball over in goal-line situations). An even more rare occurrence is him attempting to elude defenders, the only such instance I can recall in the last few years being Week 3 last year where he spun off a big hit attempt in Atlanta. This being that 1-out-of-100... Notice, no flags. I agree with the rest of your post though. Just the Brees example wasn't the best. He is! Still kickin' it on the 1's and 2's. Welp you got me, my guy. Guilty as charged. LOLOLOL.
  11. A.) Indeed, I am not related to either of the posters you mentioned. I'm here on my own free will and only here since there isn't a better Panther board (or an officially sanctioned one). If so, I'd be there. B.) I'm "repeating myself like a scratched vinyl" for one of two reasons: 1.) more than likely the person I'm replying to in any instance didn't read any of the previous posts I made in the subject (telling on yourself here, bud) and bringing up the very points I've previously debunked in earlier replies before they joined in, or 2.) I'm bringing them up again because I want their interpretation of what I'm seeing as to how it relates to the topic at hand. C.) Despite the construed belief shared by a few posters here, I'm not troll, nor do I have any interest in trolling. Trolling is fun for a short while, then becomes mundane and tasteless because there's only so much that can be trolled upon until personal attacks and insults begin and freely slung about; what's the fun in insulting someone I have no idea what they look like, I've never met, nor likely will ever meet? D.) Do you honestly think I'd be typing these big ass, well-thought out replies in fully typed out sentences (with impeccable grammar and sentence structure, might I add) if I my sole purpose here was to troll y'all? If that's the norm of trolls here, then I demand to know where y'all getting y'all trolls from because they sound defective. If I wanted to troll, I'd be posting solely in memes, GIF's, and short responses while single-quoting posters I was looking to engage in multiple consecutive posts to take up as much space as I could in each thread. I wouldn't be multi-quoting to reply to the specific posters I am debating. I simply post on numerous NFL boards of various different teams to gain insight to those teams. I expect the ribbing and won't cry over it. E.) I'm not the one playing "knock knock", if you read the beginning of this debate, you'd know I wasn't even the one that brought up "Bountygate". I replied to another poster that did, yes, but the debate that ensued was continued by countless other posters that willingly joined and contributed which is certainly welcomed. You painting me as going into random threads and bringing up "Bountygate" is wildly inaccurate and frankly just flat out wrong. Again, someone quoted me bringing up "Bountygate" ("raleigh-panther" if I'm remembering right). If someone quotes and replies to me, I'm more than likely going to respond if I feel my argument is valid. F.) No, you're not being a dick to me, you're just speaking your mind about what you feel a new poster is doing on your home board (despite me preceding you by ~5 months and change). But even if you would be acting like "a dick", it's all good. I have my big boy pants on and can handle it, my e-feelings won't get hurt. As I said before, an internet forum isn't "serious bidness" to me. I can laugh and joke around with y'all as I have in other threads here. G.) I appreciate you saying I'm an intelligent person. A pool with intent to injure certainly is on a different scale of wrong, we're certainly in agreement. What I'm saying is throughout the entire "Bountygate" saga, all the League and every media outlet known to man spewed 24/7 was along the lines of, "between 2009 and 2011, under Gregg Williams' leadership the Saints defense placed bets and deliberately sought to cause serious injury to Favre, Warner, ect. through the course of the game(s) to collect those bounties". Never addressing a "pay-for-performance" pool, only a "pay-to-injure" pool. Sidenote: yes, a "pay-for-performance" pool is not acceptable by the League's standards either, but considering their prevalence across the League across the entire lifespan of the League, we both know that wasn't the cause of the sanctions. Hell, I'd guarantee there are still similar pools in the NFL to this day. It's just far more hush-hush and simply something that will never be eradicated entirely. However, if there was truly a "pay-to-injure" scheme orchestrated 2009-2011 under Gregg Williams, he would not be coaching in the NFL right now. End of story. Plea deal or not, if he condoned and encouraged the injury of players, not only could the League simply not allow him to remain coaching at the professional level, but what college or high school athletic director in their right mind would hire him after the allegations "being proven"? That's the equivalent to a teacher molesting students and then after serving their prison sentence, the school district openly allowing them back to continue teaching like nothing ever happened. But as for your last phrase, what evidence have you seen that unequivocally proves there was a "pay-to-injure" system in place? Empirical evidence, not just "oh the NFL said this, this, and this about the investigation". That's not evidence. Hell, barely a month after "Bountygate" broke, the NFL also said Loomis was wiretapping opposing teams' signals in 2002-2004. They ran with that story as fact like we were unbeatable during that span, despite only having a 12-12 win-loss record at the Superdome and finishing dead last in yards allowed defensively in 2004 and 27th in that same category in 2002. Then all of a sudden they stopped talking about the story like it never happened. Still waiting on that apology. LOOOL.
  12. Agreed, probably should've been put in there from the beginning but it's Igo's thread and we're all playing in his sandbox so, haha. Side note, every time I see your username, it makes me think of "filet mignon" and I don't know why.
  13. True story, I got to meet Mannie Fresh at the Saints-Panthers playoff game year before last. He DJ'd pre-game and then hung around. We took a picture with him and he posted it to his Instagram.
  14. The fact that y'all don't use "Raise Up" by Petey Pablo is just a cryin' ass shame. "NOOOOORTH CAAAAAAROLINAAAAAA!" But then again "Raise Up" is dangerously close to "Rise Up" and I don't blame y'all for not wanting to be even remotely associated with that trainwreck. Or at least maybe Pantera considering y'all are they Panthers. Pantera/Panthers... right? God, I love that video. LOLOLOL.
  15. A former Panthers player in the thread I linked stated they had a bounty on Favre in the 1996 NFC Championship. That would be targeting, would it not? I think a player in that locker room would know more about what happened than someone posting on a fan forum, unless you were on the 1996 Panthers team too? If so, lets see your team credentials. And yes, that article in the link is dated 2012, so it's not referencing the Mauti hit because that hit was still 3 and a half years away from occurring. That article is referring to the 2011 Week 17 game I've already addressed multiple times and it still makes zero sense why a team would need to target the QB of a team that is 6-9 and has long been out of playoff contention while we already won the division 2-3 weeks earlier. And you mean the game where Newton started hotdogging it to the endzone and got blasted by an opposing player trying to prevent a touchdown (which he did), that game? Newton was not down, he was in the field of play and scrambling trying to score. We were trying to protect a 16-13 lead when it occurred. Was Mauti supposed to just say, "Oh it's 1st & 4 from our 4 and he's already ran 3 yards, I guess I have to allow him the touchdown." Newton pulled up and was already thinking about his celebration instead of finishing the play. He thought he wasn't going to get hit and was going to be allowed to waltz into the endzone. He guessed wrong. It was a legal hit and I'll explain to you why. A.) He was not "defenseless". He was a ball carrier, thus he did not have the QB protections he would be granted if he was in the pocket. B.) He was in the field of play and it was not abundantly clear he was going to run out of bounds (because he wasn't, he was trying to score). C.) Newton was the one who initiated the helmet to helmet contact by lowering his head when he realized he wasn't getting in the endzone untouched. Newton put his head down and Mauti simply got lower. If that play happened with the new crown of the helmet rule established last year, Newton would've gotten flagged for leading with his helmet. I'm starting to think you have a tenuous grasp of the rules you're incessantly claiming we're breaking. Then again, you're the same guy that argued with me that "a Saints player poked Cam in the eye" during the playoff game year before last and even after being shown visual evidence that no Saints' players hands ever coming close to Newton's head, you crawfished on your argument alleging they purposely kicked up rubber pellets from the turf in his eye. LOOOOOL. I really respect your diehard homerism, but dude you need to pick your battles better or at least form better counterarguments. They didn't have to be in the pool, the alleged line from the League was "Vilma reportedly put $10,000 cash on the table in the team’s meeting room and said the cash would go to anyone who could knock Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010," thus it wasn't restricted to "only those participating in the pool" and open to anyone in a Saints uniform... if such a pledge ever existed. Also in that link you posted, it says Will Smith "pledged $500 for a sack or a forced fumble" to pool, assuming a fumble recovery would payout the same as a forced fumble (a forced fumble is useless if it isn't recovered by the defense, right?), if you were Ellis or Greer in that scenario I posted earlier, which payout would you be trying to collect more: the $500 payout for recovering that fumble or the $10,000 for a hit on Favre? Unless of course, one of those pools never existed in the first place... However, by your second sentence you're acknowledging there was a "performance pool" then, correct? The line from the League that y'all have been toting for ~7 years is it was only a "pay-for-injury" pool. Every time "Bountygate" is brought up it's always (and only) referred to as a "pay-to-injure" system, never a "pay-for-performance" system. And my facts are straight, although you may need to get another set of facts, my guy.
  16. But nah, we'd probably pick up some castoff QB with a hurt shoulder from another team. That one worked before. Or maybe by then we'll have Brees' head and stream of conscious attached to a cyborg body and will have a seamless transition.
  17. If McCoy played a position that is regularly doubleteamed (say like NT), I'd be in 100% agreement with you that playing next to Short and Poe would make it easier for him to produce compared to what he did the last few years in Tampa Bay. However, from what I can deduce, he'll be playing the same position (at 3-tech) and going against Peat 1-on-1 most the time, just as he did in Tampa Bay. Poe (as y'all NT) will see the bulk of double teams against McCoy and Warford, but will see 1-on-1's with McCoy when extra blitzers need to be accounted for. Short (as y'all 3/4i/4/5-tech) will see a lot of 1-on-1's with Ramczyk as he has the previous 2 years and occasionally with Warford when y'all kick him inside (like we do with Cam Jordan) and line up another DE outside of him (as y'all have previously done with Horton). Addison (as y'all 7-tech) will see a lot of 1-on-1's with Armstead (if Armstead can stay healthy) as he has in the past too. Poe will undoubtedly face the most doubleteams against our line due to having a rookie center. When Poe isn't being doubleteamed, I'd guess it would be Short seeing the next most attention, especially when he kicks inside. Both Addison and McCoy are exceptional players that can demand additional attention, but we've been more than comfortable leaving both Armstead and Peat out on islands against opposing teams' WDE and 3-techs, respectively, and letting them use their length to their advantage. But I did enjoy the article, I appreciate you sharing the tweet/link. If McCoy (ours) isn't as settled in as we'd like by our first matchup in November, that Bear front with Short/Poe/McCoy can certainly pose some problems as it'd force McCoy (ours) into a lot of 1-on-1's with Poe. With Unger I'd feel more confident but as it stands with an unproven rookie, it could be ugly.
  18. If Brees goes down, our record is going to be "TUA" and 14. Who he's playing next to doesn't matter because McCoy (a 3-tech) is rarely being doubleteamed anyway purely out of the design of the front. The 0-tech/1-tech (or NT) will see the doubleteams because he's closer to the strongside of the line. So unless y'all plan to play him out of position or we have an injury to either Peat or Armstead (Peat is our back-up LT), he'll be 1-on-1 with Peat a vast majority of the snaps.
  19. C'mon, don't get so down on yourselves, y'all get at least one home game!
  20. My comprehension is just fine. You had no problem with your Panthers allegedly targeting Favre in 1996, but are up in arms over us allegedly targeting Newton. You can't have it both ways, don't be a fence rider. You still didn't answer my question in my previous post though. I'd really like to hear the logic behind the opposite viewpoint. 2 outta 3, I'll pie that. Nowhere in any of my previous posts did I even insinuate such a thing. They could earn a bonus for catching an interception or forcing/recovering a fumble (hence why there was an absolute mad scramble for the ball after Harvin fumbled in that video I posted earlier), an injury wasn't a requirement. As I said 2-3 posts ago, if there was a "pay-to-injure" scheme, everyone on the field in a Saints jersey would've absolutely creamed Favre (who was out the pocket and near the LOS) once Harvin fumbled that ball... but they didn't. They all ran after the ball and largely ignored Favre. Maybe you can answer that other question I asked, why didn't either Ellis or Greer (both in the absolute perfect position) blindside an unknowing Favre, especially since it would've been 100% legal to do so in this situation? Especially Ellis, a 305 lb DT. Wouldn't it have been mighty easy to obliterate Favre from behind and knock him out the game to collect that alleged $10,000 bounty? ...but he didn't.
  21. And y'all allegedly targeted Favre in the 1996 NFC Championship, how is that any different? Maybe you can answer me a question I've been trying to find out though, why would we need to target a rookie QB with a 6-9 starting record (and threw 21 TD's to 17 INT's that year) in Week 17 when we already had the division won 2-3 weeks earlier? I've been asking but no one has been able to answer it. But cute, more name-calling without a valid argument. The other guy, rbsponsel or whatever, slings some names around too but at least he's been trying to formulate an argument to conversate. If you don't have a leg to stand on, it's more than okay to sit this one out. I won't think any less of you. But insulting poster because of their differing point of view, that's just weak and barbaric. I was led to believe the Huddle was better people than those on TATF with their red and black rags.
  22. Reading mostly, occasionally posting though. And well I should get my posts in before we suck then, right? Also, pretty sure we've been named the Saints since November 1st, 1966... (November 1st is All Saints Day, just in case you didn't know).
×
×
  • Create New...