ThinkAboutIt

And even if they didn't, was that one pass his whole career? The reason people bring this up is he's been nitpicked by media since getting to the NFL, and criticized for not being a winner or able to close, or turning the ball over too much, as if he does it a ton more than other young QBs, lol. If they took one game off, doesn't change anything. Can Wilson handle criticism at the NFL level? No one knows because he's never had any, lol.

CarolinaHuddle qualifies as a "hobby" unless you're getting paid to be here.

You, alone, are irrelevant. If your attitude is all you can control is what you put in your mouth and what you speak, then no, you have no say on anything on this planet. People can control it...EVENTUALLY...by calling it out. At the end of the day, you just see no problem with there being a double standard, which is your problem.

And people complaining about the double standard doesn't mean they are HATING HIM, which you originally suggested.

Answer: Objective-minded people care. The problem with human beings is different rules for different people. Sure, subjective people don't care. Why would they, when their whole life is about judging people differently based on personal feelings? As a QB, Wilson screwed up on that last pass, just like Cam did on his last one against Seattle. That is a fact that any honest person anywhere will admit. Most won't admit it because it doesn't fit their script.

Anyone who thinks this is about HATING WILSON instead of double standards in the media is ignorant.

Did Wilson audible to the pass away from a run play, and if he DID NOT, then why didn't he audible to the run?

Stupid question.

Meanwhile, Luck was awful with a regulation size football in the biggest game of his NFL career. No one is talking about that...SUCCESS!!!

What I said is if they used deflated balls, I don't care, and it changes nothing about the fact that the Colts' sucked on offense, which has zero to do with what balls the Patriots' offense used, and the Colts defense did nothing to stop them. What I said is acting like "deflated" balls is the same level "cheating" as point-shaving or spying on other teams' practices is stupid. I don't care about "deflated" balls any more than banned supplements or deregulation cleats, which are also "cheating." Deflated balls didn't cause the Colts' defense to surrender 45 points, and everyone acting like it did is a fool. How about getting to Brady once in a while? A few ounces didn't keep them from doing that.

I said "EACH PLAY" not the "whole game."

Everyone found out about "Spygate" after the 2003 Super Bowl loss, so of course people will jump all over this as just another example of the Patriots being who they really are and proving that all that they've accomplished is fraudulent. The problem with most people is they can't understand that all forms of "cheating" are not created equal. There was one ball on the field each play. The ball didn't prevent the Colts defense from showing up. and playing with a regulation-size ball isn't what stopped the Colts' offense from scoring more than 7, therefore, I can't really care about it too much whether or not it's true. If they had just beaten the Panthers, I'd still be saying the same thing. Anyone who thinks I'm lying, must have no clue why they dislike me so much. Of course I would be.

So if a ball has less pressure, that makes it impossible for a defense to stop an offense? Who knew? ~SARCASM The Colts' offense couldn't muster more than 7 points using the same size footballs that they use every game? Who knew? ~SARCASM

Why would they do that? The Colts were playing with a regulation ball against the Patriots defense, not the Patriots' offense. The Patriots offense still had to run its plays, which the Colts' defense still failed to stop. What difference would it make if it was true? The Patriots win 24-7 instead of 45-7? It had nothing to do with the Colts' lack of offensive production.

Of course they are. Sincerely, Luck-huggers